This is probably a loaded question...but.....

Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Melissa_W said:
He thinks there is only one answer. Only he can be right. He doesn't have the wisdom it takes to see that issues aren't black and white, and that there can be more than one opinion on an issue.
there are thousands of opinions - but only one right answer.
 

Melissa_W

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,290
Likes
0
Points
0
mmcduffie1 said:
Who wrote that history book you're reading? barney? I can write a history book and say whatever I want. doens't mean the book is right.

I suppose you're the authority on history. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,003
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The great whi...err...green(?) North
AndrewF said:
How would you spill entrails on a spik? A spikE would be a little more effective.

Also, perhaps you could check the second paragraph of my post. I suspect you'll have something to say about the reason for going to war in the first place that will contradict what I've said. Proof would be an asset.

PS...spell-check is your friend.
still waiting for a reply.....
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
4,155
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Colorado
mmcduffie1 said:
Well, the constitution gives the right to freedom of speech. So shut up or listen. I don't really care. I've already seen that your level of intelligence and patriotism are lacking.
Ok, so you are just cheerleading. I just wanted to make sure that you werent a veteran, soldier or someone that has actually put something on the line for this cause.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Buckshot said:
If you will notice I said income taxes. There would still be other taxation for only the products and services used. See, this way you wouldnt have to pay for the services you most likely dont support. That is freedom. Taking your money without asking you and without allowing you to allocate where it goes falls under the title of socialism, communism or slavery. I am my own cop. If someone breaks into my home or victimizes me or my family I will deal with that. Im a lot faster with a 12 gauge than anyone is with a phone and 3 numbers. I also have a fire extinguisher because it isnt someone elses responsibility to keep me safe from that either. I have paid enough in taxes to by myself a home with land and have never called 911. I would rather have that money back and fend for myself.
I think I remember some other people that thought like you do. We burned their compound in Waco, TX.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Becca_ said:
I agree with you mcduffie on alot of this but the calling someone moron and getting nasty with them. You can never get anyone to listen and see another side of an issue by talking to them this way.
I agree, but their ignorance makes me mad enough to spit. I will try to refrain from calling anyone names from now on.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
AndrewF said:
How would you spill entrails on a spik? A spikE would be a little more effective.

Also, perhaps you could check the second paragraph of my post. I suspect you'll have something to say about the reason for going to war in the first place that will contradict what I've said. Proof would be an asset.

PS...spell-check is your friend.
A spik is a medieval spear about 20 feet long. They were often used as a mount for heads after a victory in battle.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Buckshot said:
I am more than willing to kill..infact I would embrace the opportunity to kill or risk my own life for


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yeah and if the south would have one and all that trash.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Melissa_W said:
Maybe your should take some time to actually read some of my links.

I have yet to see you post anything besides insults and terrorist hysteria.
Your links are rediculous and I have read them. I can have a website up in about twenty minutes that proves my point - big deal. The facts are all that matter - not what some degenerate posted on some websites.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Melissa_W said:
Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

Thursday, September 18, 2003

By SCOTT SHEPARD
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.

Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran.

The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime.

A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible."

Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.

In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."

Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.

But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name.

It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed.

Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection."

The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Her remarks echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon earlier Tuesday. Asked if Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."

I assume you think Bush is credible, though I don't.

dis-information is a wonderful thing
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Buckshot said:
By WE do you mean YOU or men who are better than you? Or are you just a cheerleader?
All true Americans are fighting this war wether it's banter with people like yourself who haven't clue or otherwise.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
58
Likes
0
Points
0
Melissa_W said:
That is not a valid analogy.

I guess you don't get it, so I will try to say it another way.

I think we should let other countries take care of their own problems, and we can focus on our own.
Sure leave them alone - that way they can build more bombs and train more terrorists so more Americans can die. Jolly good idea.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top