Bet No One Read This In The Newspaper

[xrayzebra]

An E-letter from Kay Granger, Congresswoman from the
12th District of Texas. Don't you just love the dimm-o-craps,
you know the one's who hold the constitution so dear and
so faithfully follow it. But I am sure all the yellow dog
dimm-o-craps on this board see nothing wrong with allowing
these people vote.



Last month, legislation came to the floor that I, along with many of my Republican colleagues, believe is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, with the support of the new Democratic majority, the bill passed.

The bill gives Delegates representing U.S. territories -- such as American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands -- the right to vote on amendments on the House floor. Unlike you and me, the residents of these territories do not pay federal income taxes. Yet these Delegates can now vote with their Democratic leadership to raise federal income taxes on the rest of us!

The populations of each U.S. Congressional district are roughly the same size in order to protect the Constitutional principle of "one person, one vote." The current population of the 12th District is about 652,000 residents. American Samoa has only 57,000 residents, the Virgin Islands, 108,000 residents, and Guam, 155,000 residents. The plan to give the 57,000 residents of American Samoa the same voice in Congress as the 652,000 residents of the 12th District of Texas is unfair to you.

Under the new Democratic plan, the representatives of these tiny territories can now vote on the House floor and potentially cancel out my vote as your representative. That means they will be able to vote on amendments concerning healthcare, immigration and national security, all vitally important issues to residents of the states.

If the residents of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands want their Delegates to have a vote in Congress, they should enter through the front door of statehood, or support a constitutional amendment to change the constitution. Granting delegate voting rights is a back-door move by the Democratic leadership to increase their majority voting margins.

I will be working to make sure that your voice continues to be heard in Congress, and will keep you informed on developments regarding this issue.



Sincerely,

Kay Granger

[101A]

You're right; never read it.

How strange.

Thank you.

[Bob Lanier]

Plenty of people who do pay federal taxes in the U.S. don't have the right to vote.

Who exactly cares about enfranchising residents of American territories, other than the party who they don't vote for?

Oops.

[spurster]

An E-letter from Kay Granger, Congresswoman from the
12th District of Texas.

...


Under the new Democratic plan, the representatives of these tiny territories can now vote on the House floor and potentially cancel out my vote as your representative. That means they will be able to vote on amendments concerning healthcare, immigration and national security, all vitally important issues to residents of the states.


Someone should tell her it's a symbolic vote. If their vote would have changed the result, they won't be counted.

[Yonivore]

Someone should tell her it's a symbolic vote. If their vote would have changed the result, they won't be counted.
That's right, symbolism over substance; the Democratic credo.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's right, symbolism over substance; the Democratic credo.


2 words for the GOP

freedom fries :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

2 words for the GOP

freedom fries :rolleyes
That was done in legislation? Wow! I didn't know...you're right, if Republicans passed legislation that advocated changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries, that's pretty stupid.

But, it didn't happen that way, did it?

No, you have the Democrats in Congress passing symbolic legislation that undermines the war effort and now, tries to "symbolically" dilute the votes of real American citizens.

No, the Democrats are the true symbolism over substance party.

[xrayzebra]

2 words for the GOP

freedom fries :rolleyes

Did you read this in our press. Thought not. Seems our
MSM never reports all the news, just the good dimm-o-crap
news. You know resolutions to oppose the Iraq war or
maybe "flash back time" Jane Fonda opposing the Iraq
war. Well all you dimm-o-craps, when you get the funding
stopped for supporting the troops you say you support,
their blood will be on your hands. Oh, yeah, you support
the troops, the our enemies troops.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you read this in our press. Thought not. Seems our
MSM never reports all the news, just the good dimm-o-crap
news. You know resolutions to oppose the Iraq war or
maybe "flash back time" Jane Fonda opposing the Iraq
war. Well all you dimm-o-craps, when you get the funding
stopped for supporting the troops you say you support,
their blood will be on your hands. Oh, yeah, you support
the troops, the our enemies troops.


Ok Ray you your kind supports the troops by putting them in harms way for nothing. Your kind supports unecessary wars but,but,but you support the troops.. blood on our hands? The GOP is drenched in GI blood..Ray, Bush started this war and it's his repsonsibility..

Think now RAy..if Bush has changed tactics we could assume the previous plan was not working.. so who is repsonsible for the blood spilled because of the bad plan? Let me guess the MSM? CLintons? democrats?


Wow another straw man argument from Ray..the MSM.. I am hopeful one day one Bushbot will define and explain who this MSM is.. From what I gather it's any entity that dares to report anything bad about Bush or the GOP.. I notice the talking heads who blame the MSM never address the story..just who is reporting it..

[ChumpDumper]

Seems our
MSM never reports all the news, just the good dimm-o-crap
news.I haven't seen this story on Fox.

[Yonivore]

I haven't seen this story on Fox.
I seem to recall it being reported by Fox News.

I did find this on their website, Fox News Sunday (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245362,00.html) with Chris Wallace did an interview with Newt Gingrich in which it came up.

There were other links to stories about it on the FoxNews Website. Some aggregated from other sources and some Fox News original. I can't say if it was reported in their news broadcast.

Seriously, do you even watch Fox News, Master Baiter?

[ChumpDumper]

Sure I do.

Not on Sundays though.

Guess it's not that big of a deal if the story didn't have legs.

[Yonivore]

Sure I do.

Not on Sundays though.

Guess it's not that big of a deal if the story didn't have legs.
Name a story, critical of Democrats, that has gotten legs in the last 6 years. Just because FoxNews doesn't pull a TANG or a Scooter on things that, were they done by Republicans, the rest of the MSM would, doesn't meant they're not important stories.

So, you only give weight to issues that grow legs in the mainstream media?

Good to know.

[ChumpDumper]

No, dipshit, I'm more likely to see a story on the MSM that have legs. If it's mentioned in passing on one show while I'm asleep, I'm not likely to see it.

You are one stupid motherfucker.
Name a story, critical of Democrats, that has gotten legs in the last 6 years.That stuff that Insight magazine made up about Obama's terrorist upbringing got alot of play.

Good job!

[clambake]

You're not enjoying the rift between Hilary and Obama that fox is salivating over? You must be! Doesn't it take your mind off the flag draped caskets coming home? How could you take your eyes off the "Best military campaign of all time"?

[Yonivore]

You're not enjoying the rift between Hilary and Obama that fox is salivating over? You must be! Doesn't it take your mind off the flag draped caskets coming home? How could you take your eyes off the "Best military campaign of all time"?
Oh please, it's not even leading the news -- after only a couple of days.

You Democrats really have no idea what a true, negative media blitz is all about. In fact, the last time it came close, there were more stories attacking Kenneth Starr than there were negative about Billy Boy.

[Yonivore]

No, dipshit, I'm more likely to see a story on the MSM that have legs. If it's mentioned in passing on one show while I'm asleep, I'm not likely to see it.
You seriously believe that?

Plame -- should never have had legs.

You're more likely to see stories the MSM wants to have legs, get legs in the mainstream media.

You're the stupid motherfucker, Master Baiter.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh please, it's not even leading the news -- after only a couple of days.So you only care about stories that lead the news in the MSM.

Good to know.[/Yonithink]

[ChumpDumper]

You seriously believe that?

Plame -- should never have had legs.:lol You're the stupid motherfucker who thinks perjury is a capital offense and still argue that years later. Hypocrite.
You're more likely to see stories the MSM wants to have legs, get legs in the mainstream media.So write FoxNews for not running this topic's story as their lead.

[clambake]

If fox were fair and balanced, they would take a little time to discuss why Bill O'Rielly is defending child rapist and abductors. They wouldn't even discuss his sexual harrassment of co-workers.

[BIG IRISH]

No, dipshit, I'm more likely to see a story on the MSM that have legs. If it's mentioned in passing on one show while I'm asleep, I'm not likely to see it.

You are one stupid motherfucker.That stuff that Insight magazine made up about Obama's terrorist upbringing got alot of play.

Good job!

Nice to see a Mod with a expanded vocabulary :lol

[sabar]

No, the Democrats are the true symbolism over substance party.

Hmm, they both are.


On 11 March 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R - Ohio) and Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R - North Carolina) declared that all references to French fries and French toast on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to rename French fries as "freedom fries". This action was carried out without a congressional vote, under the authority of Congressman Ney's position as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees restaurant operations in the house.

According to a statement released by Ney, this move was a symbolic effort to express displeasure with France's "continued refusal to stand with their U.S. allies". The statement further read: "This action today is a small, but symbolic, effort to show the strong displeasure many on Capitol Hill have with our so-called ally, France."

This sentiment was communicated through the Internet, chain e-mails, and frequent references on 24-hour news coverage from stations like CNN and Fox News.

The French embassy made no comment, except to point out that French fries come from Belgium.

[Yonivore]

Hmm, they both are.
Again, no legislation. Thanks for playing.

[Gerryatrics]

So, what's the huge deal with delegates from unincorporated territories of the United States being able to cast limited votes in the Committee of the Whole? Does it really matter? If "non-voting" delegates cast votes that turn out to be decisive, the Committee votes again without the delegates. It's just a little game Democrats like to play because the territories tend to have Democrat delegates.

[ChumpDumper]

If it's unconstitutional, prove it in federal court. Simple.

[xrayzebra]

Ok Ray you your kind supports the troops by putting them in harms way for nothing. Your kind supports unecessary wars but,but,but you support the troops.. blood on our hands? The GOP is drenched in GI blood..Ray, Bush started this war and it's his repsonsibility..

Think now RAy..if Bush has changed tactics we could assume the previous plan was not working.. so who is repsonsible for the blood spilled because of the bad plan? Let me guess the MSM? CLintons? democrats?


Wow another straw man argument from Ray..the MSM.. I am hopeful one day one Bushbot will define and explain who this MSM is.. From what I gather it's any entity that dares to report anything bad about Bush or the GOP.. I notice the talking heads who blame the MSM never address the story..just who is reporting it..

If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.
Why do you think we have had no attacks within the
US for the past six years? Because the dimm-o-craps
have opposed every proposal made by Bush? Hmmmm,
it is because we have the bad guys tied up in Iraq, stupid!

The only way this nation can be defeated is how the
dimm-o-craps and people like you are attempting. Destroy
us from within. What is the dimm-o-crap plan? Defeat
of our nation by those who want to destroy us. We
suffered one defeat because of the same people who want
us to suffer a defeat again. I remember some idiot saying
killing all those people at WTC was not grounds for us to
go to war. Yeah, that is mentality of people of your class.

John Murtha is what he is a low class, scumbag politician
who is crooked as a dog's hind leg and aided by people
like Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, and on and on and on. And
never forgot the biggest hero of the left, Hanoi Jane.

Yes, dummy, the blood of our troops is on your and your
dimm-o-craps hands. You are the ones who support our
enemies and hinder a commander-in-chief who is trying
to protect our country. You are wrong as two left feet
and the left leaning groups you support.

I love your statement, Bush started the war, really, who
the hell bombed our WTC (twice), Barracks in Saudi Arabia, killed
our troops in Somalia, bombed out warship. Damn sure
wasn't Bush.

[ChumpDumper]

I remember some idiot saying
killing all those people at WTC was not grounds for us to
go to war.I remember some idiot saying Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. It takes all kinds.

[johnsmith]

I remember some idiot saying Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. It takes all kinds.


Just the mention of 9/11 is making me cringe now because it opens up the thread to "what really happened on that day" nonsense.

[xrayzebra]

^^What really happened was a group of terrorist few two
aircraft into the WTC and killed over two thousand people.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol mouse still has another 10 hours of the same videos for me to watch.

[Yonivore]

I remember some idiot saying Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. It takes all kinds.
Really? Who said that Master Baiter?

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Who said that Master Baiter?You don't remember that linkage, Pollyanna?

Why have you spent five years trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda anyway?

[Yonivore]

You don't remember that linkage, Pollyanna?

Why have you spent five years trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda anyway?
No one ever said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, Master Baiter.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe this will refresh your memory:
This shows that the connections to the Saddam regime went much higher than previously thought. Uday himself made the arrangements with the Sudanese government in December 1994. Osama met directly with the General Director of the IIS. Even after he left the Sudan, the Sudanese continued to act as a conduit between Osama and Iraq, at the behest of Saddam Hussein -- and the IIS states that they were actively working to connect to Osama again after he landed in Afghanistan.

During this period of 1996, al-Qaead bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Osama issued his fatwa against the US. The embassy attacks in Africa followed, and then the bombing of the USS Cole -- and finally, 9/11.

One has to wonder how successfully the IIS was in its project to "revitalize" their relationship.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1106958&postcount=1

[ChumpDumper]

No one ever said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, Master Baiter.And of course plenty of folks all over the country said Saddam was behind 9/11. I'd tell you not to be an idiot, but you can't help yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Their relationship was anything but superficial and while there isn't any specific evidence (yet) pointing to directed support for 9/11, by Iraq, that doesn't mean al Qaeda didn't benefit from their relationship in ways that were detrimental to our interests.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=937469&postcount=24

[Yonivore]

Okay, follow closely, Master Baiter;

Believing there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is not the same as saying Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Saddam Hussein wasn't behind the suicide bombings in Israel but, he certainly had a relationship with the Palestinians that were behind them.

You really are a stupid, stupid person.

[Yonivore]

And of course plenty of folks all over the country said Saddam was behind 9/11. I'd tell you not to be an idiot, but you can't help yourself.
And, whomever those folks are don't have the evidence to support that statement...even if they believe it is possible.

[ChumpDumper]

And, whomever those folks are don't have the evidence to support that statement.People like you?
Hell, the evidence is starting to point to the possibility -- although no on in this administration has ever made the assertion (as you untruthfully claim) -- that Iraq was, indeed, involved in the events of 9-11.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=887315&postcount=85

You are such a fucking liar, Yoni. It's so easy to own you, I'm beginning to think you like it.

[Yonivore]

People like you?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=887315&postcount=85

You are such a fucking liar, Yoni. It's so easy to own you, I'm beginning to think you like it.
Still nothing.

No one has made the claim that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.


Hell, the evidence is starting to point to the possibility -- although no on in this administration has ever made the assertion (as you untruthfully claim) -- that Iraq was, indeed, involved in the events of 9-11.
What part of that do you construe to say Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

It may someday be known to be true but, as of today, no one -- in their right mind -- would make that claim.

You're trying to set up a straw man. I know your whole asswipe argument depends on someone actually making that claim but, too bad, no one said it. I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand the words you read and re-post.

[gtownspur]

Still nothing.

No one has made the claim that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.


What part of that do you construe to say Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

It may someday be known to be true but, as of today, no one -- in their right mind -- would make that claim.

You're trying to set up a straw man. I know your whole asswipe argument depends on someone actually making that claim but, too bad, no one said it. I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand the words you read and re-post.


I think it was the George Bush of the Spurstalk troll forum who probably said that Sadaam= 911/ Patriotic cakes= Military service, but Chump is a little slow regarding these things.

[Yonivore]

I think it was the George Bush of the Spurstalk troll forum who probably said that, but Chump is a little slow.
Yeah, hence the, "...no one -- in their right mind --..." inclusion.

[gtownspur]

Yeah, hence the, "...no one -- in their right mind --..." inclusion.


By those same standards we could extract qoutes were Clinton did want to invade Iraq during his tenure, making him a neocon gone Onstar lover aggie marriot- Saddleback Church attendant. Rofl Rofl.

[ChumpDumper]

What part of that do you construe to say Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?:lmao Probably the part where you say the evidence is pointing to Iraq's being involved in 9/11. And don't be ridiculous, there are still people in this country who believe it -- it's no shock that you were the first one to jump up and deny it.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand the words you read and re-post.I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand the words you post.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think there is anything simple about the multitude of relationships the Ba'athist regime had with terrorism. I think it's a naive, simplistic, and restrictive view that believes no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th is simple or absolute.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=154340&highlight=Saddam#post154340

You disingenuous piece of shit. You are too much of a coward to stand by your own words yet again.

[Yonivore]

:lmao Probably the part where you say the evidence is pointing to Iraq's being involved in 9/11. And don't be ridiculous, there are still people in this country who believe it -- it's no shock that you were the first one to jump up and deny it.
Long way from claiming Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Do I believe he was involved in or behind 9/11? I think it's possible. Absolutely. And, in that thread I stated the evidence is "...starting to point to the possibility..."

That's no where close to a definitive claim that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You are a stupid fuck.

[gtownspur]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=154340&highlight=Saddam#post154340

You disingenuous piece of shit. You are too much of a coward to stand by your own words yet again.


I'm glad to see you think Yoni is your President.

But back to proving the president stated 9=11 was committed by Sadaam....

i won't hold your breath.

[Yonivore]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=154340&highlight=Saddam#post154340

You disingenuous piece of shit. You are too much of a coward to stand by your own words yet again.
I stand by everything you've posted of mine. They just don't say what you claim. I know, I wrote them. I know what I meant when I hit the post button.

Conclusion? You're a fucking idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe Saddam was involved in the planning of 9/11?

Yes or no?

[gtownspur]

Do you believe Saddam was involved in the planning of 9/11?

Yes or no?


Don't know.

But George Bush could be reached regarding further inquiry through the postal service.

[Yonivore]

Do you believe Saddam was involved in the planning of 9/11?

Yes or no?
I don't know. Do I believe it's possible? Yes.

But, there's more than planning so, your question is a bit restrictive. Could he have been involved in financial support of al Qaeda? Training? Other support short of planning and execution? Yes, yes, and yes.

Was he? Well, we don't have conclusive proof, do we?

But, there is certainly evidence pointing in that direction.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes or no.

[Yonivore]

Yes or no.
I have no way of knowing who did the planning. Why don't you broaden your question to, say:

"Do you believe Saddam Hussein was directly or indirectly involved in the 9/11 attacks?"

My answer? Yes. I believe that.

You're welcome for the help dumbfuck.

[gtownspur]

Did bush say Saddaam was behind 911?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. I believe that.Then why spend all this time trying to deny it? Why lie about what you believe?

[Yonivore]

Did bush say Saddaam was behind 911?

Yes or no.
Better yet, has anyone in this administration made that claim?

[ChumpDumper]

Did bush say Saddaam was behind 911?

Yes or no.No. He didn't have to. He had folks like Yoni that believed it no matter what he said.

See how easy it is to give a simple yes or no?

[gtownspur]

Better yet, has anyone in this administration made that claim?


yes,

George Bush the troll from ST.

-Cumlumper

[Yonivore]

Then why spend all this time trying to deny it? Why lie about what you believe?
I've never made the claim he was. That I believe it is not the same as knowing and stating so conclusively.

I'm not denying I believe that. I not denying saying anything you've posted. I am, however, denying that I've ever claimed he was conclusively involved in the September 11 attacks.

Now, answer gtown's question.

[ChumpDumper]

So Yoni believes Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but for some reason denies believing it in the past when he said he did.

Why lie?

[Yonivore]

So, Master Baiter, you will conclusively state that there will never be found any evidence that positively links Saddam Hussein to the planning, training, support, or execution of the September 11 attacks?

Yes or no?

[Yonivore]

So Yoni believes Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but for some reason denies believing it in the past when he said he did.

Why lie?
Once again, you can't read.

[gtownspur]

So Yoni believes Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but for some reason denies believing it in the past when he said he did.

Why lie?

He just said he believes in the link, but does not know.

RIF.

[ChumpDumper]

So, Master Baiter, you will conclusively state that there will never be found any evidence that positively links Saddam Hussein to the planning, training, support, or execution of the September 11 attacks?

Yes or no?Unlike you, I can say what I believe. I believe Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

He just said he believes in the link, but does not know.

RIF.All I ever asked him was what he believes. Turns out he believed it all along, although he denies it.

[Yonivore]

Unlike you, I can say what I believe. I believe Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.
I believe he was and I've never denied that.

Neither of us yet has the proof necessary to exculpate or incriminate him in that respect.

However, there is evidence that points in that direction.

You really need to learn the difference between someone making a claim and someone stating a belief.

So, next yes or no question.

Was Saddam Hussein involved, in any way, in the September 11 attacks?

Yes or no?

[gtownspur]

All I ever asked him was what he believes. Turns out he believed it all along, although he denies it.

Do you believe he still denies it?

Yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

Already stated my belief.

Sorry you couldn't handle it.

I'm glad you finally accepted your own belief that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just don't lie about it again later, ok? Save yourself the embarrassment.

[Yonivore]

All I ever asked him was what he believes. Turns out he believed it all along, although he denies it.
No, you didn't ask. You started posting a bunch of my posts that you imagined supported this idiotic claim:



I remember some idiot saying Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. It takes all kinds.
It was pretty late in the game that you started asking anything. It was just a bunch of unrelated re-postings and calling me a liar.

[Yonivore]

Already stated my belief.

Sorry you couldn't handle it.

I'm glad you finally accepted your own belief that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just don't lie about it again later, ok? Save yourself the embarrassment.
Yeah, I'm so embarassed.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe he still denies it?

Yes or no?I think he will deny it again if he feels like it suits whatever purpose he's pursuing. Yoni is not a very principled person. He lies and steals all the time, so I believe he will do it again.

[Yonivore]

I think he will deny it again if he feels like it suits whatever purpose he's pursuing. Yoni is not a very principled person. He lies and steals all the time, so I believe he will do it again.
So much stupidity wrapped up in one moderator. Where does Kori find them?

[gtownspur]

I think he will deny it again if he feels like it suits whatever purpose he's pursuing. Yoni is not a very principled person. He lies and steals all the time, so I believe he will do it again.

Yoni's post are right here. infront of you.

anyone who objectively reads would find out he's hasn't been denying it.

This is pointless.

how did a topic based on wether Bush ever said Sadaam planned 911, go into yoni's beliefs.

The topic of Bush's claim wasn't settled and trying to make yoni as being a flip flopper does not support you're claim.

[Yonivore]

Yoni's post are right here. infront of you.

anyone who objectively reads would find out he's hasn't been denying it.

This is pointless.

how did a topic based on wether Bush ever said Sadaam planned 911, go into yoni's beliefs.

The topic of Bush's claim wasn't settled and trying to make yoni as being a flip flopper does not support you're claim.
It's just easier to pick on me...or, maybe not.

I think you hit on Master Baiter's hidden secret though. He's pointless.

And, no, President Bush has never said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

[clambake]

He doesn't need to say it. He has you. You're the perfect pawn.

[Yonivore]

He doesn't need to say it. He has you. You're the perfect pawn.
Perfect! Since I'm not saying it either.

[ChumpDumper]

So much stupidity wrapped up in one moderator. Where does Kori find them?Whining about my mod status again. Weak. You have resorted to mouse tactics.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni's post are right here. infront of you.Actually, I put them right in front of him to get him to admit he thinks Saddam was involved in 9/11. He acted just like mouse when I asked him what he thought.

[ChumpDumper]

It's just easier to pick on me...or, maybe not.

I think you hit on Master Baiter's hidden secret though. He's pointless.

And, no, President Bush has never said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.I said that, dipshit.

Thanks for admitting you think he was involved with it after having your nose rubbed in it like a dog in his own shit. Gotta learn somehow.

[Yonivore]

Actually, I put them right in front of him to get him to admit he thinks Saddam was involved in 9/11. He acted just like mouse when I asked him what he thought.
The mouse that roared.

Getting me to admit what I believe is no big feat. I do that readily. I believe Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11. But, alas, that's not what you were bloviating about.

Telling me I -- or anyone else -- has unequivocally stated Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 is quite different. No one, to my knowledge, has said that. There simply isn't enough information for it to be known with the certainty required to say, "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11." Much less, that he was even involved.

I know your brain is too small to grasp the difference, Master Baiter, but, I'm sure others reading this thread quite understand.

[Yonivore]

I said that, dipshit.

Thanks for admitting you think he was involved with it after having your nose rubbed in it like a dog in his own shit. Gotta learn somehow.
Apparently not.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for admitting you think Saddam was involved in 9/11.

You didn't have to lie about what you believe.

[ChumpDumper]

Apparently not.You're right. A dog would actually learn to stop shitting all over the place. You never will.

[Yonivore]

You're right. A dog would actually learn to stop shitting all over the place. You never will.
So, you don't see any difference between these two statements:

"Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11."

"I believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."

Do you even understand the difference between a stated fact and a belief?

You truly are a mental midget.

[Yonivore]

Thanks for admitting you think Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Obviously, dumbshit (well, obvious to most anyway), I've stated that on several ocassions. Hell, you even brought up the posts in this thread.


You didn't have to lie about what you believe.
And, I never lied about it.

The lie was where you claimed people had said "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" and then started using my posts in a stupid attempt to demonstrate such.

[ChumpDumper]

The lie was where you claimed people had said "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" and then started using my posts in a stupid attempt to demonstrate such.People have said that. Quite often. Have you actually been in America the past five years?

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

"I never said Saddam Hussein was invovled in 9/11, but I said I believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."

[johnsmith]

Do you realize how stupid you sound?


That goes for both of you, this argument is fucking retarded.

[Yonivore]

People have said that. Quite often. Have you actually been in America the past five years?
Name one. Preferably someone in authority, from the Bush administration.


Do you realize how stupid you sound?

"I never said Saddam Hussein was invovled in 9/11, but I said I believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."
The question is, do you realize how stupid you are.

"I never said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 [because I don't have enough information to know that], but I said I believe Saddam Hussein may have been involved in 9/11, [because there is some evidence pointing to a long relationship between al Qaeda and his regime and he considered the U.S. an enemy].

There, does that help?

[Yonivore]

That goes for both of you, this argument is fucking retarded.
C'mon, it's getting pretty fun trying see how far the Master Baiter will go to show he doesn't understand basic concepts like belief and knowledge.

[ChumpDumper]

Name one.What, you want the poll results of the people who think Saddam was behind 9/11? You don't believe anyone believes what you said you believe?

[ChumpDumper]

"I never said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 [because I don't have enough information to know that], but I said I believe Saddam Hussein may have been involved in 9/11, [because there is some evidence pointing to a long relationship between al Qaeda and his regime and he considered the U.S. an enemy].

There, does that help?Nah, we went to war based on a bunch of unsubstantiated beliefs like yours.

That's the whole point.

[Yonivore]

Nah, we went to war based on a bunch of unsubstantiated beliefs like yours.

That's the whole point.
Actually, that's not true either, but what's the point. You're exhausting, kind of like a five year old is exhausting.

I just ask that you go back to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq and U.N.S.C. Resolution 1661 and tell me which of the justifications for using military force or for meting out "severe consequences" are a bunch of unsubstantiated beliefs?

Let's run through them one at a time. C'mon Master Baiter, let's see if you can be a Master Debater.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, that's not true eitherOf course it is.
Let's run through them one at a time.Let's run through all the WMD that were found. One at a time.

[Yonivore]

Of course it is.
No, it's not.


Let's run through all the WMD that were found. One at a time.
Sure, but you just discount them.

Besides, Congress passed the AUMF and it contained a lot more than just WMD's, retard.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it's not.You believed he had WMDs ready to strike anywhere at a moment's notice.
Sure, but you just discount them.Ok, list all the WMDs found that the administration actually counts as WMDs. Go right ahead.
Besides, Congress passed the AUMF and it contained a lot more than just WMD's, retard.Do you honestly believe that the AUMF would have passed without the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs poised to strike at a moment's notice?

[Yonivore]

You believed he had WMDs ready to strike anywhere at a moment's notice.
See, there you go again.

"You believed he had WMDs..." Yes. "...ready to strike anywhere at a moment's notice." No. That's a fucking ridiculous assertion.

[ChumpDumper]

No. That's a fucking ridiculous assertion.Is it?
And, what of the documents that have been recovered that show Saddam could field WMD's within days...from these "precursors?"And this says nothing of the stockpiles of actual WMDs you believed he had and believed were shipped out to Syria on trucks or planes depending on what blog you are stealing from that week.

Anyway, that doesn't matter. Just go ahead and list all the actual WMDs that the Bush administration claims to have found.

[johnsmith]

Is it?And this says nothing of the stockpiles of actual WMDs you believed he had and believed were shipped out to Syria on trucks or planes depending on what blog you are stealing from that week.

Anyway, that doesn't matter. Just go ahead and list all the actual WMDs that the Bush administration claims to have found.


Good God, do you have other people's quotes saved on your hard drive? Or do you have a man crush on Yoni and you obsess over all his posts?

Get a life man.

[ChumpDumper]

Good God, do you have other people's quotes saved on your hard drive?Nah, the search function is quite easy to use.
Get a life man.Hey, you're reading all this when you don't have to. What's your excuse?

[Yonivore]

Anyway, that doesn't matter. Just go ahead and list all the actual WMDs that the Bush administration claims to have found.
I'm not a Bush administration spokesperson.

And, once again, you show your inability to discern meaning from words.

"You believed he had WMDs ready to strike anywhere at a moment's notice."

is different than:

"And, what of the documents that have been recovered that show Saddam could field WMD's within days...from these 'precursors?'"

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not a Bush administration spokesperson.You don't have to be. Just name the WMDs they say they have found.

Why can't you do this?

[gtownspur]

You don't have to be. Just name the WMDs they say they have found.

Why can't you do this?


Wrong thread, different topic.

[ChumpDumper]

Pfft. That ship has sailed.

All I'm asking for is a list of the WMDs the Bush administration says it has found in Iraq in the past five years. Yoni's always posting blogs about WMDs, so this should be really easy for him to find. Hell, even you could find something as important as this.

[clambake]

I think sharing oxygen with saddam is enough for Yoni to implicate him to 9/11. Breath deep.

[gtownspur]

Pfft. That ship has sailed.

All I'm asking for is a list of the WMDs the Bush administration says it has found in Iraq in the past five years. Yoni's always posting blogs about WMDs, so this should be really easy for him to find. Hell, even you could find something as important as this.


No ship sailed.

you just plain lost that argument, and decided to change the subject.

Nothing spectacular there.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I got Yoni to admit what he believed. That's more than I could for his hero mouse.

Found that list of WMDs yet?

Why are you stalling?

[xrayzebra]

Chump, a couple of questions:

Did Saddam use WMD against Iran?

Did Saddam use WMD against the Kurds?

Did Saddam let weapons inspectors into his country, unhindered?

Did the Terrorist have training camps inside Iraq?

Did Saddam give money, publicly, to suicide bombers families
in Palestine?

Just checking?

Now what makes you think you won any argument. Tell me where
did the WMD go?

Why did he NOT have contact with AQ and the folks who
took down WTC towers.

All the questions are unanswered by anyone, just folks keep
saying Bush lied. Well, I don't agree with those that say that.
I say Bush relied on intel furnished by CLINTON appointed
people in the intel community. Agreed upon by Congress and
the very people who now claim they were misled by Bush. Now
who do you think is really lying?

[clambake]

He got rid of it long ago. Remember ray, weapons inspectors concluded correctly that they had no wmds. It didn't matter to bush how to start this war, it only matters to you. All bush needs is the bottom 30%. So enjoy the basement, there are no windows, locked up tight the way W likes you to be. Put your headphones back on, Mann Coulter is about to speak.

[xrayzebra]

But Clam, you didn't answer a single question. Just put out the
same argument you have been using all along.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Give up on Ray. He is wrong, his chickenhawk president is wrong, his 5 deferrment VP is wrong and the American people have figured it out. Please Ray explain to us how "clinton did nothing during his presidency while Osama planned 9/11" Of course you then proclaim "we haven't been hit in 6 yrs because of Bush".. Could it be they are planning an attack? How do I know that when another attack hits us somehow The guy who you say is responsible for no getting hit will completely be let off the hook by you and yoni. You see Ray your so much of a hypcrite you don't even realize it. You are so far up Bush's ass you have become an apologist. You are more of taritor than those you accuse of being treasonous

[xrayzebra]

Give up on Ray. He is wrong, his chickenhawk president is wrong, his 5 deferrment VP is wrong and the American people have figured it out. Please Ray explain to us how "clinton did nothing during his presidency while Osama planned 9/11" Of course you then proclaim "we haven't been hit in 6 yrs because of Bush".. Could it be they are planning an attack? How do I know that when another attack hits us somehow The guy who you say is responsible for no getting hit will completely be let off the hook by you and yoni. You see Ray your so much of a hypcrite you don't even realize it. You are so far up Bush's ass you have become an apologist. You are more of taritor than those you accuse of being treasonous

Don't you ever get tired of typing the same old crap?

Clinton did lay half of Hollywood and at least one
young intern on his staff. (Pun intended, but more than
likely over your head). And he shared his Presidency
with his wife, remember two for the price of one. So
guess he did do something while in office, besides
reading polls and conducting focus groups to see how
the wind was blowing on any given day.

As far as me being up any one's ass, well you sound like
an expert on that issue.

Just keep on supporting those troops you support. The
terrorist. I will support my government and our troops
who protect you sorry butt.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Don't you ever get tired of typing the same old crap?

Clinton did lay half of Hollywood and at least one
young intern on his staff. (Pun intended, but more than
likely over your head). And he shared his Presidency
with his wife, remember two for the price of one. So
guess he did do something while in office, besides
reading polls and conducting focus groups to see how
the wind was blowing on any given day.

As far as me being up any one's ass, well you sound like
an expert on that issue.

Just keep on supporting those troops you support. The
terrorist. I will support my government and our troops
who protect you sorry butt.


Speaking of terrorism Ray any idea when we'll get back to the war on terror? Al-Qaida is regrouping in Afghanistan while we are bogged down in Iraq. So please get back to us when this liberation experiment is over..

[xrayzebra]

Speaking of terrorism Ray any idea when we'll get back to the war on terror? Al-Qaida is regrouping in Afghanistan while we are bogged down in Iraq. So please get back to us when this liberation experiment is over..


Ever heard of NATO? Just Checking.

Matter of fact Australia is beefing up it's troops there. As
well as some other NATO nations.

So guess someone is not too bogged down in Iraq.

[clambake]

Jesus ray, even bush made it past his lies and admitted it was for oil. Can't you just follow the guy in a straight line? Why hang on to bullshit that he let go of?

[ChumpDumper]

Now what makes you think you won any argument. Tell me where
did the WMD go?They were destroyed.

[smeagol]

The way Yoni has said something and then has backtracked on this thread has me really confused.

First Yoni states:


No one ever said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, Master Baiter.

as a response to Chump's question:


Why have you spent five years trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda anyway?

Therefore, you are stating that that nobody, not even you (Yonivore), has ever said Saddam was linked to 9/11.

But then, after chump brings up old quotes of yours which clearly show you are full of shit, you admit you believe the Saddam - 9/11 linkage:


Believing there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is not the same as saying Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

but you try to sidetrack the debate going on a "knowing is not the same as believing" tangent.

I know it is difficult to admit you have been owned.

But dude, you have been owned badly on this one.

[ChumpDumper]

2003 Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Belief has real consequences. Don't pretend it doesn't.

I brought up the WMDs because Bush bellieved there were stockpiles of them in Iraq ready to use on us. Hell, I even believed there might be some weaponized gas somewhere in that country; though that was never enough for me to call for an invasion.

So think about what you believed before the invasion. Make a list. Now how many of your beliefs turned out to be bullshit? You may surprise yourself with your own bullshit.

[xrayzebra]

They were destroyed.

Can you prove that?

[ChumpDumper]

It's what I believe happened to them. There is evidence supporting this. What do you believe happened to them?

[ChumpDumper]

Can you prove that?It's a 1000 page report, but if you are really that interested:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a 1000 page report, but if you are really that interested:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

But ray wants to win in Iraq :lol


He supports the troops better :lol

[xrayzebra]

It's what I believe happened to them. There is evidence supporting this. What do you believe happened to them?

I have no idea, nor do you. Only what you want to believe.
I think some still exist and stockpiled somewhere. Possibly
Syria maybe even in Iran or buried in the desert. They
have found some strange things buried out there, like
aircraft. I just know he had WMD and used them. I just
don't know what happen to it. I don't think I will ever know.
And I have a theory our government does know, including
key leaders in Congress, both parties and the information
is so sensitive they cant or wont talk about it.

Does anyone remember when the scuds were being fired
and we knew they were cause they were hitting targets.
How many did we find? None that I am aware of until
after the conflict was over. Where were they hidden, we
used every resource we had and couldn't locate them. It
is just a little something to consider.

[clambake]

Hey ray, how many strings are on your banjo?

[ChumpDumper]

I have no idea, nor do you. Only what you want to believe.
I think some still exist and stockpiled somewhere. Possibly
Syria maybe even in Iran or buried in the desert. They
have found some strange things buried out there, like
aircraft. I just know he had WMD and used them. I just
don't know what happen to it. I don't think I will ever know.
And I have a theory our government does know, including
key leaders in Congress, both parties and the information
is so sensitive they cant or wont talk about it.In that case, we are much less safe than before the invasion of Iraq.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In that case, we are much less safe than before the invasion of Iraq.


I am beginning to see that ray is a bit limited on the intelligence side of things.. I am beginning to slow things down for him.. :lol

[xrayzebra]

I am beginning to see that ray is a bit limited on the intelligence side of things.. I am beginning to slow things down for him.. :lol

Yeah, because we have to always stop and explain things to
you. But hang in there, there's always hope.

[xrayzebra]

In that case, we are much less safe than before the invasion of Iraq.

Chump, we are very unsafe. But not because of the
invasion of Iraq. We have been unsafe (WTC one and 9/11
and other incidents) for a very long time. And will be for
a long time after Iraq. Iraq is only one phase. Look at the
history and future of this conflict. Please!

[clambake]

So, Iraq is just one phase of a long line of future failures? Do you think our next phases will be based on any truth? Do you think he'll have to admit, once again, that it's about oil?