Rumors of War

[tinknocker44]

Newsweek Good read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/

[The Doctor]

that is exciting, isn't it?

I hope we don't leave any clubs in the bag this time.

FORE!

[chillbilly]

Good stuff.

[2cool4us]

Lets Rock!!

[wen-sar]

we can assume none of you will be on the front lines going into Iran..


should Iran be attacked perhaps they will destroy every oil facility in the middle east.. that too will be "cool" won't it Repub's..

LOL..


:D

[chillbilly]

we can assume none of you will be on the front lines going into Iran..
should Iran be attacked perhaps they will destroy every oil facility in the middle east.. that too will be "cool" won't it Repub's..
LOL..
:D

I've seen psychopaths in the movies who don't smile and laugh as much as you do.

1056

[refrigeration mafia]

You know I think that it's only fair that every male between the ages of 18 and 55, reguardless of economic status, social class or terms of previous military enlistment should be drafted to goto war with Iran.

Everyone should be required to spend some time on the front line.

Come one, come all.

:)

[glennac]

Good link Tink, This is the first one you posted I enjoyed reading. Keep it up. We needed a lift. :)

[ga-hvac-tech]

Moral of the story: If your country is stirring up a civil war, do not be surprised if you get in trouble.

For those that do not get it: Iran has been quietly stirring up the 'sectarian violence' in Iraq for years. Why the USA did not put a stop to that sooner is beyond me, but that is a different post. So this diplomat thinks he can just do as he pleases... think again dude.

If it gets hot enough over there, some reality will come out of it. Kinda like the bully on the playground in grade school: He will rule until about a half dozen smaller guys gang up on him. Sure, the gang will get banged up... but the playground will be safe afterwards. Just the way the rules of the street work... and they have not changed for millenia (thousands of years), so do not expect them to change now.

And concerning oil flow: Iran is in deep economic trouble. They cannot afford to loose much oil revenue. It HURT them badly when oil was down to $50/bbl in January (sorry, cannot post a link--this is from a private subscription site I pay for). The country of Iran would go broke in a matter of weeks if they shut off oil flow. They are already in dutch to Russia for their nuclear program... Russia may still cut them off (again, from the private site---Stratfor if you are interested in REAL intel). Blowing up the oil flow is no more than a bluff and everyone a the official level knows this.

[wen-sar]

"concerning oil flow"
"Blowing up the oil flow is no more than a bluff and everyone a the official level knows this."

ga-hvac-tech



let me see.. Iran would be getting attacked.. bombs dropping on their heads.. Iranian leaders would be dying..

and somehow they would say.. oh no.. we cannot blow up the oil facilities that feed the monsters dropping bombs and killing us..

RFLMAO..

Republican logic is so silly..


:D

[wen-sar]

oh no.. they're evil..


hey if we start dropping bombs on them. they won't do anything about it..


RFLMAO..

:D

[ga-hvac-tech]

"concerning oil flow"
"Blowing up the oil flow is no more than a bluff and everyone a the official level knows this."

ga-hvac-tech



let me see.. Iran would be getting attacked.. bombs dropping on their heads.. Iranian leaders would be dying..

and somehow they would say.. oh no.. we cannot blow up the oil facilities that feed the monsters dropping bombs and killing us..

RFLMAO..

Republican logic is so silly..


:D

You , my friend, obviously do NOT understand international diplomacy.

Bluffing is the way the game is played.

We bluff them, they bluff us. Then repeat, repeat, repeat.

After months of that (repeat, repeat, repeat), one side flinches and a deal is struck.

That is the way the game is played.

Now let me ask you a question: If your ONLY source of income was from HVAC work, and you had literally NO other way to make a buck: Would you destroy all your tools? No you would not. Now apply this to Iran.

And NO, we would not blow up the entire country. Think before you type. We would take out strategic targets (like we did in Iraq). Just enough to leave them a little less arrogant, a little more humble, and a lot more ready to listen and come to a compromise.

[wen-sar]

"We would take out strategic targets (like we did in Iraq). Just enough to leave them a little less arrogant, a little more humble"
ga-hvac-tech


like we did in Iraq.. and how has that been going for you..

3200 Dead soldiers..
30,000 injured soldiers..
bombings everyday..
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead.. bet that will come back to bite us someday..


the only people that are arrogant are the ones thinking they can just bomb a country (strategically or not).. and somehow it won't cost them anything..


:D

[wen-sar]

p.s.

my first concern was the dead and wounded soldiers..

but hey, don't forget the half a TRILLION dollars wasted in Iraq..

:D

[James 3528]

p.s.

my first concern was the dead and wounded soldiers..

but hey, don't forget the half a TRILLION dollars wasted in Iraq..

:Dless than 5% of the GDP

[2cool4us]

"concerning oil flow"
"Blowing up the oil flow is no more than a bluff and everyone a the official level knows this."

ga-hvac-tech



let me see.. Iran would be getting attacked.. bombs dropping on their heads.. Iranian leaders would be dying..

and somehow they would say.. oh no.. we cannot blow up the oil facilities that feed the monsters dropping bombs and killing us..

RFLMAO..

Republican logic is so silly..


:D
Muslim radicals think differently than we do. They are more concerned over their "religous jihad" against Israel and the US more than even their own economy. Therefore they would take out their own oil fields. IMO we should NUKE Tehran. How's that for SHOCK and AWE!

[chillbilly]

p.s.

my first concern was the dead and wounded soldiers..

but hey, don't forget the half a TRILLION dollars wasted in Iraq..

:D


Yes. A very inexpensive war, comparatively speaking.

And of course, we have about 6 million Iraqi's who won't agree that the money is wasted....Only liberal bots who have never listened to the people on the ground and get their news from crooksandliars.com.

LOL

[geerair]

p.s.

my first concern was the dead and wounded soldiers..

but hey, don't forget the half a TRILLION dollars wasted in Iraq..

:DYeah, by the time Bush slinks disgracefully out of office the war costs will appproach 3/4 of a trillion.

But then what does Bush care? He will pass this mess on to the next guy to clean up.

[chillbilly]

Yeah, by the time Bush slinks disgracefully out of office the war costs will appproach 3/4 of a trillion.

But then what does Bush care? He will pass this mess on to the next guy to clean up.


1061

[ga-hvac-tech]

"We would take out strategic targets (like we did in Iraq). Just enough to leave them a little less arrogant, a little more humble"
ga-hvac-tech


like we did in Iraq.. and how has that been going for you..

3200 Dead soldiers..
30,000 injured soldiers..
bombings everyday..
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead.. bet that will come back to bite us someday..


the only people that are arrogant are the ones thinking they can just bomb a country (strategically or not).. and somehow it won't cost them anything..


:D

Check some numbers guy:

Vietnam: 55000 troops dead over 10 years.

WWII: Well over 100K dead over 5 years.

We got off easy in Iraq.

Note: MANY a wise person has tried to end the whole idea of war. It just cannot be done. Those that are dry behind the ears understand that. Those that are not, well they just will have to learn the hard way.

Having said that; you will NOT learn at the expense of my country.

[geerair]

We got off easy in Iraq. Perhaps you should contact the families of the 3171 dead and thousands maimed and tell them they got off easy in this unjustified, optional Bush vanity war.


I'm certan they will be comforted by your callous remarks.


Support the troops indeed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Muslim radicals think differently than we do. They are more concerned over their "religous jihad" against Israel and the US more than even their own economy. Therefore they would take out their own oil fields. IMO we should NUKE Tehran. How's that for SHOCK and AWE!

Hmmm, You may be totally right about this, but I have been wondering about a few things:

1) Do you ever hear of the son of a prominent political leader doing a suicide bomb run? NO
2) Do you ever see a politician address the idea of suicide bombings (a muslim politician that is)? NO
3) There was a rumor going around back a few years ago that anyone that would do a suicide bombing for the cause of the Palistinians (against Israel); their family would be taken care of financially for life.
4) It also seems to me that most (if not all) the folks that actually strap on explosives and 'do it' are peasants with no future (go rent the movie Syriana, it tells a story you might want to study and learn).

Now IF all of this is true (only peasants actually DO a bomb run, and their families are taken care of $$$ for life), then this may indeed throw a different slant on the so called 'Muslim jihad' mentality.

Seems to me one could conclude that the folks at the top use these 'bombings' for their political advantage, while they would not personally do it.

So based on that rational, perhaps there really is not as widespread jihad mentality as it would appear; just a good media campaign successfully waged by the leaders of the Islamic countries. And lets not forget: Politicians are masters at media campaigns.

And the really pathetic thing about it is that our media is falling for it. I think I said something to the effect that there are some things even a dog will not do... well printing/airing news stories that are totally against one's country should be on that list.

There is a growing middle class of folks in Iran that are not happy about the radical ambitions of Amidimajad (sp). The intel I read says that Amidimajad is on his last leg, and a more pragmatic Rafsenjani is the next one to take the top place. This would work well for the US, because Rafsenjani is pro-west. He just wants a peaceful materialistic economy, and he is smart enough to realize one can get it a lot easier (or one cannot get it at all without) being friends with the USA.

[HOT SHOT]

Perhaps you should contact the families of the 3171 dead and thousands maimed and tell them they got off easy in this unjustified, optional Bush vanity war.


You'd probably get punched in your face by those families for the way you phrased the end of your statement. Marginalizing their sacrifice.

[James 3528]

Perhaps you should contact the families of the 3171 dead and thousands maimed and tell them they got off easy in this unjustified, optional Bush vanity war.


I'm certan they will be comforted by your callous remarks.


Support the troops indeed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

[James 3528]

Perhaps you should contact the families of the 3171 dead and thousands maimed and tell them they got off easy in this unjustified, optional Bush vanity war.


I'm certan they will be comforted by your callous remarks.


Support the troops indeed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[ga-hvac-tech]

Perhaps you should contact the families of the 3171 dead and thousands maimed and tell them they got off easy in this unjustified, optional Bush vanity war.

I'm certain they will be comforted by your callous remarks. Support the troops indeed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think you forget: We have a VOLUNTEER military. The folks over there CHOSE to go. Yeah, a few of them (very few) would rather stay stateside and ride out their hitch. But most of them understand that freedom has to be vigilantly defended, or it goes away.

And I would suggest you do NOT go and talk to the families of those folks that have lost their sons and daughters. Most of them are proud of their offspring (dead or alive). And while they would have rather not had to deal with the sacrifice, they understand it was and is necessary so immature twits like you can have a free country.

Geer: You need to go over there and spend a month looking around. You might learn something if you kept your mouth shut and your ears open. But if you did go over there and did not keep your mouth shut, you probably would not make it back. I would hate for your family to suffer that loss. It would hit them a lot harder than it hits the families of the volunteers that went and gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

I have numerous friends that have sons and daughters over there. The parents are D**n proud of them. I have met most of the young soldiers and soldierets. They are fine people, and I am also proud to know them. They will make fine citizens for our country.

[geerair]

You'd probably get punched in your face by those families for the way you phrased the end of your statement. Marginalizing their sacrifice.Surely not. The truth of Bush's optional war is easily recognizable. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[geerair]

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003Snopes.

[geerair]

I think you forget: We have a VOLUNTEER military. The folks over there CHOSE to go. Yeah, a few of them (very few) would rather stay stateside and ride out their hitch. But most of them understand that freedom has to be vigilantly defended, or it goes away.

And I would suggest you do NOT go and talk to the families of those folks that have lost their sons and daughters. Most of them are proud of their offspring (dead or alive). And while they would have rather not had to deal with the sacrifice, they understand it was and is necessary so immature twits like you can have a free country.

Geer: You need to go over there and spend a month looking around. You might learn something if you kept your mouth shut and your ears open. But if you did go over there and did not keep your mouth shut, you probably would not make it back. I would hate for your family to suffer that loss. It would hit them a lot harder than it hits the families of the volunteers that went and gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

I have numerous friends that have sons and daughters over there. The parents are D**n proud of them. I have met most of the young soldiers and soldierets. They are fine people, and I am also proud to know them. They will make fine citizens for our country.Perhaps you should heed your own advice. It might keep you from describing ultimate sacrifice and grevious injuries suffered by others as "getting off easy."

[hvactech13]

Just when it starts to look like certain individuals have finally pulled their heads out and surfaced for air, they post and it becomes obvious that they still have a thick brown film distorting their vision and that they have suffered irreverseable brain damage from severe hypoxia.

[chucko615]

Surely not. The truth of Bush's optional war is easily recognizable. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

All wars have been optional, you either fight or you don't. We didn't have to fight in WWII..

[ga-hvac-tech]

Perhaps you should heed your own advice. It might keep you from describing ultimate sacrifice and grevious injuries suffered by others as "getting off easy."

Geer, you really do have no clue...

There are folks out there (and lots of them) that are proud to serve their country. And if someone looses their life, yes there is greiving. But they understood when they volunteered to go that this was a real possibility.

These folks understand that freedom is something that has to be pro-actively defended. I already explained that in an earlier post.

All I choose to say to you now is that you really do NOT understand these folks. And they are the ones that stand between you and the USA turning into a third world banana dictatorship.

IMO, you should really go visit a few countries that are not as well off nor as free as the USA. You would come home with a more mature head on your shoulders, and you would see things from a different viewpoint.

And before you make some smart comment to me; I HAVE visited a lot of countries. I have visa stamps from probably 2 dozen countries in my passport. I have seen with my eyes a lot of suffering and hopelessness. I have also seen a lot of governments that do not give a D**n about anything but themselves. We in the USA have it really good compared to what I have seen abroad.

Bush and company that you seem to hate so strongly are wonderful to what a lot of folks have to deal with.

Ever wonder why everyone wants to come to the USA? They do not worry about lib or conserv, dem or repub. They just want to be in a free country where they can live life and make a future for themselves. And most of them I know vote conservative after they figure out the system. Imagine that: The immigrants are smarter about politics than the native born citizens... :D

And BTW: The military is FULL of VOLUNTEERS from families that are first generation here. I personally know a bunch of them that are PROUD to serve their country. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Snopes.

As I have said before and will say again: You seem to think Snopes is a god (small g on purpose; there is only one true God, He wrote the Bible--through devoted servants) when it comes to accuracy. How do you know that? Show me some proof? That is, specifically show me proof that Snopes is absolutely accurate as you have put them on a pedestal to be.

Hint: NOBODY nor NOTHING is that accurate.

Conclusion: Research your sources before opening your mouth.

It takes a wiser and more mature person to listen FIRST and speak later. Do you fit (by your displayed behavior) either of those descriptive words?

[James 3528]

As I have said before and will say again: You seem to think Snopes is a god (small g on purpose; there is only one true God, He wrote the Bible--through devoted servants) when it comes to accuracy. How do you know that? Show me some proof? That is, specifically show me proof that Snopes is absolutely accurate as you have put them on a pedestal to be.

Hint: NOBODY nor NOTHING is that accurate.

Conclusion: Research your sources before opening your mouth.

It takes a wiser and more mature person to listen FIRST and speak later. Do you fit (by your displayed behavior) either of those descriptive words?

Snopes is nothing but a liberal blogg. Their forum proves that. There is a reason Geer offers little proof of anything outside of Snopes. To try to put the spin on that many word of mouth quotes is more proof. Snoopes even does a terrible job of that.

Their reply in a nut shell if you read it is "Yes they said it, but they really didn't mean it"

To be a liberal means you really need to make the leap and believe that. Ironic a person that does bills himself as an intelligent Independent and Atheist publishes himself as doing so. .

[geerair]

Geer, you really do have no clue...

There are folks out there (and lots of them) that are proud to serve their country. And if someone looses their life, yes there is greiving. But they understood when they volunteered to go that this was a real possibility.

These folks understand that freedom is something that has to be pro-actively defended. I already explained that in an earlier post.

All I choose to say to you now is that you really do NOT understand these folks. And they are the ones that stand between you and the USA turning into a third world banana dictatorship.

IMO, you should really go visit a few countries that are not as well off nor as free as the USA. You would come home with a more mature head on your shoulders, and you would see things from a different viewpoint.

And before you make some smart comment to me; I HAVE visited a lot of countries. I have visa stamps from probably 2 dozen countries in my passport. I have seen with my eyes a lot of suffering and hopelessness. I have also seen a lot of governments that do not give a D**n about anything but themselves. We in the USA have it really good compared to what I have seen abroad.

Bush and company that you seem to hate so strongly are wonderful to what a lot of folks have to deal with.

Ever wonder why everyone wants to come to the USA? They do not worry about lib or conserv, dem or repub. They just want to be in a free country where they can live life and make a future for themselves. And most of them I know vote conservative after they figure out the system. Imagine that: The immigrants are smarter about politics than the native born citizens... :D

And BTW: The military is FULL of VOLUNTEERS from families that are first generation here. I personally know a bunch of them that are PROUD to serve their country. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.Of course none of this rambling screed has anything to do with the fact you regard deaths and injuries as getting off easy.

[geerair]

As I have said before and will say again: You seem to think Snopes is a god (small g on purpose; there is only one true God, He wrote the Bible--through devoted servants) when it comes to accuracy. How do you know that? Show me some proof? That is, specifically show me proof that Snopes is absolutely accurate as you have put them on a pedestal to be.

Hint: NOBODY nor NOTHING is that accurate.

Conclusion: Research your sources before opening your mouth.

It takes a wiser and more mature person to listen FIRST and speak later. Do you fit (by your displayed behavior) either of those descriptive words?Oh, Snopes is only more accurate than the cut and pastes and chain e-mails you and your fellow conservlicans are fond of posting.

Research your sources? I would say that is indeed rich coming from someone who posts chain e-mails directly from their inbox to here.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Of course none of this rambling screed has anything to do with the fact you regard deaths and injuries as getting off easy.

Geer, your comment shows that you have a narcisstic attitude. If that is too big a word for you, it means you are focused on yourself as the center of the universe.

Maturity is when a person sees that they are no more than one tooth on a very large wheel. Then they become part of the system and can grow to learn how to be a productive contributor to the betterment of ALL mankind.

It is called growing up. The Dem's IMO do not encourage this. The Repubs do. Now ask yourself this: Would you rather live in a world full of immature cry-babies, or a world of mature and wise folks that move forward with life.


But before you answer, think about this: Immature cry-babies are easy to control. Mature folks that have 'been there' are tuff to herd around.

Please do NOT reply until you carefully think over this question and respond with a thoughtful answer you are willing to stick to for the rest of your life.

And to the other conservative posters: Lets hold Geer to his answer... ;)

[geerair]

Snopes is nothing but a liberal blogg. Their forum proves that. There is a reason Geer offers little proof of anything outside of Snopes. To try to put the spin on that many word of mouth quotes is more proof. Snoopes even does a terrible job of that. Bawhahahahahahh. If it is liberal why have you yourself used it? Do we see another in a long line of james hypocritical droolings?






Their reply in a nut shell if you read it is "Yes they said it, but they really didn't mean it"Actually their reply is yes they said it but context is provided for none of the quotes and some are truncated.


To be a liberal means you really need to make the leap and believe that. Ironic a person that does bills himself as an intelligent Independent and Atheist publishes himself as doing so. .To a liberal it means you are fond of quote-mining and dishonesty.

[geerair]

Geer, your comment shows that you have a narcisstic attitude. If that is too big a word for you, it means you are focused on yourself as the center of the universe. Actually it show that you would rather address anything but the callous remark you made about our troops.


Maturity is when a person sees that they are no more than one tooth on a very large wheel. Then they become part of the system and can grow to learn how to be a productive contributor to the betterment of ALL mankind.If your system includes supporting unjustified wars then I want no part of it.

In reality all you are saying is sit down and shutup. In further reality, all you are saying is your system allows no dissent.

Maturity? Laughable. One only needs to read the posts of the members of your system to discern their level of maturity.







It is called growing up. The Dem's IMO do not encourage this. The Repubs do. Now ask yourself this: Would you rather live in a world full of immature cry-babies, or a world of mature and wise folks that move forward with life. Growing up? Laughable. Taking responsibility is a large part of growing up. The head of your system claims nothing is his fault. The members of your system here claim everything is somebody else's fault.
Their posts are riddled with responsibility dodging.



But before you answer, think about this: Immature cry-babies are easy to control. Mature folks that have 'been there' are tuff to herd around. This from someone who posts chain e-mails without even the pretense of critical thinking.






Please do NOT reply until you carefully think over this question and respond with a thoughtful answer you are willing to stick to for the rest of your life.

And to the other conservative posters: Lets hold Geer to his answer... ;)Let 'er rip.