So what do the Liberals do now that Saddam is captured?
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Quote from waggie945:
Couldn't trade the market this week because he had to move.
Actually, I guess the REAL question is do you trade full time?
Oh yeah, and if it isn't such a big secret . . .
Perhaps you'd like to tell everyone here on ET where you live.
Can you do that for us?
P.O. Box 2531
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Do you want me to post my phone number too?
The reason the "war" was executed so easily, is because:
SADDAM HAD NO REAL ARMY, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO AIR FORCE, NO HIGH TECH WEAPONS, NO DEFENSE SYSTEMS, IT WAS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!!
Why is it now, that we have proof that Saddam was no legitimate threat, do people not see why the war was so easy?
Talk about ridiculous.
Watching the chicken hawks high five each other because of the "war" is like watching a bunch of high school boys beat up a bunch of grade school girls and tell each other how great they are. Big deal, we take out some untrained arabs in an old Toyota pickup brandishing 30 year old junk weapons and we think we are great.
This was not a battle, not a war. Hell, the drug lords in Columbia would have put up a better fight...at least they have better weapons.
SADDAM HAD NO REAL ARMY, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO AIR FORCE, NO HIGH TECH WEAPONS, NO DEFENSE SYSTEMS, IT WAS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL!!!
Why is it now, that we have proof that Saddam was no legitimate threat, do people not see why the war was so easy?
Talk about ridiculous.
Watching the chicken hawks high five each other because of the "war" is like watching a bunch of high school boys beat up a bunch of grade school girls and tell each other how great they are. Big deal, we take out some untrained arabs in an old Toyota pickup brandishing 30 year old junk weapons and we think we are great.
This was not a battle, not a war. Hell, the drug lords in Columbia would have put up a better fight...at least they have better weapons.
Oh ok, so your saying that you wish they had put up a better fight. You wish they had killed more of our serviceman? you wish they had launched chemical weapons on our serviceman? You wish they had fought the evil Americans harder? Wow man, I mean I always knew loved those arabs over there but I didn't know you were rooting for them. Thanks for shedding some light on that. Let me guess, you were also pissed that Hitler threw in the towel so fast too huh? Kind of hoping he could maybe kill another million jews really quick or something. Nice.
Since you asked, yes he would. He would also like to know if you fly "his way". Maverick, be careful with this postal psycho.
It was THIS thread where he started out nolan-vinny-sam, and then continued the SAME argument as wiggle. A truly dumb thing as long as he's trying to hide his alias. He must have been distracted at the time, and I don't want to know what the distraction was!
How sophomoric are you?
The best you can do is twist words? Make argument via innuendo? Suggest that I wish our servicemen had met with pain, suffering, and death?
Pathetic. All you can do is spew Hannityisms.
Try making an arugment....for once, rather than embarrassing yourself with foolish responses that have no value, no weight, no logic, and simply try to escalate the process into a flame war.
For those who are reading this, and don't understand the technology used by the right wing in their comments and responses, Mavman's response is classic Hannityism.
This technology is divisive, inaccurate. mudslinging, disrespectful, geared to brainwash the listener, and the product of a weak and shallow mind who is unable to think for themselves and answer accordingly.
The quicker these Hannityism practicioners stoop to these methods in a discourse, rest assured that what preceeded their gutteral response was very close to the truth, and their only response is to attempt to slur the deliverer of the message to distract the reader away from the truth that was revealed in the previous comments.
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE METHODS THESE PEOPLE ARE USING!!!
A REVIEW OF HISTORY, WILL SHOW YOU WERE THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST.
The best you can do is twist words? Make argument via innuendo? Suggest that I wish our servicemen had met with pain, suffering, and death?
Pathetic. All you can do is spew Hannityisms.
Try making an arugment....for once, rather than embarrassing yourself with foolish responses that have no value, no weight, no logic, and simply try to escalate the process into a flame war.
For those who are reading this, and don't understand the technology used by the right wing in their comments and responses, Mavman's response is classic Hannityism.
This technology is divisive, inaccurate. mudslinging, disrespectful, geared to brainwash the listener, and the product of a weak and shallow mind who is unable to think for themselves and answer accordingly.
The quicker these Hannityism practicioners stoop to these methods in a discourse, rest assured that what preceeded their gutteral response was very close to the truth, and their only response is to attempt to slur the deliverer of the message to distract the reader away from the truth that was revealed in the previous comments.
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE METHODS THESE PEOPLE ARE USING!!!
A REVIEW OF HISTORY, WILL SHOW YOU WERE THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST.
Oh rubbish. What typical liberal double talk. Before the war it was "watch out, here comes another Vietnam". Remember when the war started all the BS by the antiwar liberals about how badly the war was going? Would you like me to dig up some posts for you? Name me one freakin liberal media luminary who claimed this war would be a cake walk?
And it's not the fact that Iraq defenses were so poor, it's that we are so good! You almost sound disgusted by it! Well, so-ree. Next time we'll try to be more sensitive.
Look, the fact that no other was has been as successfully executed as this one is because no other country has dominated the world military as much as America. I'm not going to apologize for that. Think any other country could have done as bang up a job of it?
Well said. As my friend Pabst says, these disgruntled liberals will ALL be eating dick sandwich when GWB is re-elected in a landslide.
All you can do is just laugh at 'em. First it was the 2000 election, now anti-war Iraq BS, and then they wonder why the Democratic party is in HUGE trouble.
How sophomoric are you?
The best you can do is twist words? Make argument via innuendo? Suggest that I wish our servicemen had met with pain, suffering, and death?
Hey, you said it, not me. I agree, what you said was a disgrace.
Pathetic. All you can do is spew Hannityisms.
What is your obsession with attacking this man relentlessy? Seriously man this compulsive behaviour is not healthy. End your infatuation with this man now! You never did cite an example where something Sean Hannity has ever said is inaccurate. You simply disagree with his politics. That doesn't make him wrong.
Try making an arugment....for once, rather than embarrassing yourself with foolish responses that have no value, no weight, no logic, and simply try to escalate the process into a flame war.
I have made many arguemants. You have never been able to shoot them down. You simply start another thread with another liberal article you get from the internet.
For those who are reading this, and don't understand the technology used by the right wing in their comments and responses, Mavman's response is classic Hannityism.
Again you attack Hannity, you are going for the record man.
This technology is divisive, inaccurate. mudslinging, disrespectful, geared to brainwash the listener, and the product of a weak and shallow mind who is unable to think for themselves and answer accordingly.
So let me get this straight, if I disagree with you I must have a shallow mind and be trying to brainwash people? Couldn't I make the same arguement about you? Huh?
The quicker these Hannityism practicioners stoop to these methods in a discourse, rest assured that what preceeded their gutteral response was very close to the truth, and their only response is to attempt to slur the deliverer of the message to distract the reader away from the truth that was revealed in the previous comments.
Ok seriously now, I'm going to e-mail him and let him know that you are smearing his name and character here.
Again, if I say something that you disagree with then I must be trying to distract the reader from the truth. Isn't it possible that it is you who are doing just that? Isn't it?
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE METHODS THESE PEOPLE ARE USING!!!
A REVIEW OF HISTORY, WILL SHOW YOU WERE THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST.
These people? Who are THESE people? Are you now stereotyping people? What about YOUR people? Huh?
The best you can do is twist words? Make argument via innuendo? Suggest that I wish our servicemen had met with pain, suffering, and death?
Hey, you said it, not me. I agree, what you said was a disgrace.
Pathetic. All you can do is spew Hannityisms.
What is your obsession with attacking this man relentlessy? Seriously man this compulsive behaviour is not healthy. End your infatuation with this man now! You never did cite an example where something Sean Hannity has ever said is inaccurate. You simply disagree with his politics. That doesn't make him wrong.
Try making an arugment....for once, rather than embarrassing yourself with foolish responses that have no value, no weight, no logic, and simply try to escalate the process into a flame war.
I have made many arguemants. You have never been able to shoot them down. You simply start another thread with another liberal article you get from the internet.
For those who are reading this, and don't understand the technology used by the right wing in their comments and responses, Mavman's response is classic Hannityism.
Again you attack Hannity, you are going for the record man.
This technology is divisive, inaccurate. mudslinging, disrespectful, geared to brainwash the listener, and the product of a weak and shallow mind who is unable to think for themselves and answer accordingly.
So let me get this straight, if I disagree with you I must have a shallow mind and be trying to brainwash people? Couldn't I make the same arguement about you? Huh?
The quicker these Hannityism practicioners stoop to these methods in a discourse, rest assured that what preceeded their gutteral response was very close to the truth, and their only response is to attempt to slur the deliverer of the message to distract the reader away from the truth that was revealed in the previous comments.
Ok seriously now, I'm going to e-mail him and let him know that you are smearing his name and character here.
Again, if I say something that you disagree with then I must be trying to distract the reader from the truth. Isn't it possible that it is you who are doing just that? Isn't it?
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE METHODS THESE PEOPLE ARE USING!!!
A REVIEW OF HISTORY, WILL SHOW YOU WERE THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST.
These people? Who are THESE people? Are you now stereotyping people? What about YOUR people? Huh?
Oh rubbish. What typical conservative double talk and rationalization.
Remember before the war it was "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?"
Remember how when the war started the conservatives told us how we had to disarm Saddam, because he represented such a threat to national security?
Hogwash.
Name me one conservative media luminary who didn't say with full certainty that Saddam had WMD and was going to use them on the USA if we didn't attack now.
The defenses were that poor, they had no defense. France could have taken Iraq, which shows us how weak and feeble Iraq really was.
My disgust is the trumping up of an non existent threat to justify taking out Saddam, not the fine efforts of our brave soldiers.
Remember before the war it was "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?"
Remember how when the war started the conservatives told us how we had to disarm Saddam, because he represented such a threat to national security?
Hogwash.
Name me one conservative media luminary who didn't say with full certainty that Saddam had WMD and was going to use them on the USA if we didn't attack now.
The defenses were that poor, they had no defense. France could have taken Iraq, which shows us how weak and feeble Iraq really was.
My disgust is the trumping up of an non existent threat to justify taking out Saddam, not the fine efforts of our brave soldiers.