Thread: NYC to GOP: Drop Dead

Kyoto is based on egregious junk science. IAC, WTF stopped all those other nations from adopting it and applying its restrictions WITHOUT the US being involved? Is the treaty no f'ing good unless America signs it? If all those other nations are so sure that it's a Good Thing, then let them adopt it and prove how wonderful it is.

maybe you should go read this.....
http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showthread...39559#post39559

or this
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html

He lied to us,

Im not for Bush being President again but I just have to add something here. Technically he didn't lie to anyone. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true and three Intelligence agencies are telling you its true. It was a mistake not a lie.

I think Bush knows what he needs to know and that's it...the problem is that our intelligence knew there was going to be an attack on WTC...did our President know?

Originally posted by andpau66
[b]Im not for Bush being President again but I just have to add something here. Technically he didn't lie to anyone. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true and three Intelligence agencies are telling you its true. It was a mistake not a lie.

I don't know... He was looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq, and he knew the information he was using was five years old... Maybe not a lie then, but he definetly knew the intelligence wasn't conclusive.

I love a good fracas!

That's it, let it all out. In the absence of logical argument, make fun of the opposing side!

That's all that some members of the opposing side merit.

It's better than being a nazi and a selfish fuck!

Well, THAT was inevitable.

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

And I suppose you'd have big business running our lives instead. Hypocrite.

I don't want ANYONE running my life, but given a choice between business and government, I'll take business every time. Business at least produces. Government only consumes and oppresses.

No, you want blood and guts! Explosions and guns!

There are far worse things than war, the most evil of them being the peace of the slave and the prisoner.

Because you might be gay if you didn't like that sort of thing!

Why do you say that? Were you looking for a quickie? I know this will crush you, but I'm hetero. Be brave! Your disappointment is understandable, but it will pass.

Why, there aren't any WMDs in Iraq. There's your proof. Watch the news. Go out and read a book.

There were, as even your RATs freely admitted up until the campaign season started and they needed an issue. And there may still be. When you have a nation with an area 7,892 square miles bigger than California, and 12 years to hide something as small as WsMD, why the hell do you think someone is going to trip over them while walking down the street? Ever see the photos of the Russian MiGs that Saddam wasn't supposed to have, which were discovered buried in the sand near an airfield? Your UN "inspectors" couldn't find full-size fighter jets. And you want our guys to find stashes of biochem weapons or suitcase nukes that could be hidden in a cellar or a pit or a cave or buried in the sand, while they're being shot at by murder-minded camel-jockeys?

Your grasp of reality is tenuous.

You simple man, how is it junk science? You truly don't know much about it, do you?

Evidently a hell of a lot more than you do, because I don't confine my reading to Earth First propaganda.

The reason it isn't a treaty without is because WE POLLUTE THE MOST.

Bullshit, the sequel. Our air is far cleaner than it was decades ago, WITHOUT some preposterous treaty with the sole political purpose of coercing the US into becoming a third world nation by imposing crushing economic burdens to enforce UNPROVEN theories. Kyoto is pure politics.

What the hell is your trip, anyway? Are you so selfish that you'd sacrifice the world around you just to drive your stupid ass SUV?

First, butthead, I drive a 4-cylinder Ford Contour, NOT an SUV. I don't own an SUV, never have, and never will. But I find it grossly offensive that liberal dipshits want to outlaw them because THEY don't like them (except for themselves, but they are of course exempt because they are the elite). BTW, what do they drive in Alaska? Yugos?

Beyond that, my "trip" is the idiots who insist on making national policy based on the scientifically illiterate whining of ecozealots peddling a junk-science theory that blames global warming on human (read American) activity, and ignores that Earth has been far warmer than it is now, and it was a hell of a lot further back than the industrial revolution.

BTW, this is the coldest summer I've seen in these parts in years. I think I'll be a liberal.

GLOBAL COOLING!!!

Clue time, kid.

Developing countries produce nearly half of all greenhouse gases. According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions will come from developing countries exempted from the proposed protocol, including China, India, South Korea and Brazil. If developed countries unilaterally stopped all their greenhouse gas emissions (something no one seriously proposes), total greenhouse gas concentrations would continue to rise. The U.N. estimates that exempted countries will contribute 76 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions within the next 50 years. By 2025, China alone will emit more carbon dioxide than the current combined total of the United States, Japan and Canada. Thus, if greenhouse gas emissions are the source of potentially catastrophic global warming, the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing to prevent it.

Reality and Climate Change Policy

I'll bet that your screeching ecoloonies never mentioned that in their strident hate-America diatribes. And the numbers are from the UN, not the EEE-VILL Bush administration.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. The ABM system was installed here in Alaska, and it doesn't work. It shot down 1 of 3 missiles when those missiles had GPS installed on them. It has a 1/3 success rate when cheating.

Obviously, nothing is perfect in the development stages. If the people of history had your defeatist, "Aw, shit, it doesn't work, so let's abandon it!" attitude, we'd still be living in caves eating raw meat and grunting gutturally.

Bullshit. The economy is strong and gaining every day. Read something besides the Daily Worker. IAC, exactly what does the president have to do with the economy? It's a damned shame that public education is more interested in teaching safe sex than useful subjects such as economics.

No it's not. More and more of the labor force is becomin unemployed each month. I believe I posted these statistics in a similar debate with Rich, except he didn't argue with them, because they're right there on the department of labor's website.

I've seen the egregious distortions of those statistics by the gloom-and-doom peddlers. You dispsticks are praying for a depression, or indeed any sort of national disaster, so that you can point your bony fingers and screech, "BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE!" Such mindless, obsessive hatred is demonic.

When he says we're going on a fucking crusade in the middle east, that's too religious.

Did he?

Unlike your false god, John F(ucking) Kerry, President Bush doesn't use that language in public.

When he's trying to ban gay marriage without a good cause, that's too religious.

There ARE good causes, although you liberal cheerleaders for queer "rights" won't acknowledge them. Unfortunately, you don't have the faintest idea of the utter travesty that occured in Massachusetts in order to legitimize queer "marriage".

BTW, kid, what are you going to say when people demand the right to "polyamory" and multiple marriages betweens groups of people? After all, to use the queer-lovers' favorite excuse, "They're all consenting adults". How will you stop marriages between homo brothers, or sisters, or dads and sons, or moms and daughters? After all, "They're all consenting adults," and there is obviously no issue of children of incest.

The trouble with you damned liberals is that you don't think. You feel and react.

When he says this is God's war, that's too religious.

Did he?

Ever give the merest thought to the fact that our enemy is people who are obsessed with fighting Allah's war against the infidels, i.e., you and me? Do you know the first damned thing about the teachings of Islam re Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam? I didn't think so.

I'm sure you'd just as soon have this be a fundementalist country, but for those of us who value justice, equality, and freedom, it just doesn't work.

I have no desire for a Christian country, but I damned well don't want an atheistic country, either. BTW, your Muslim idols want an Islamic America, and they won't settle for less.

It's not an act. You really ARE that clueless. You poor soul.

Of course it's easy for you to say that when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Little boy, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.

WHAT evidence? Like all good lefties, you spout unsubstantiated opinon and assume that everyone will believe it just because you said it. You'd last about five minutes on the political boards where I post.

Really? It's opinion that he backed out of several treaties?

Backed out? No. Rejected as unworkable and foolish? Yes.

It's opinion that he lied to us about WMDs in Iraq?

Yes, it's an opinion spouted by liberals who don't have clue one, and whose hatred of President Bush is pathological.

Wow, amazing what passes for opinion these days.

Yes, 'tis, but that doesn't stop liberaloonies from spewing them.

Explain WHAT away? Your uneducated opinions? Why should I want to do that? You're entitled to them.

Dodging the issue. Good job. You're making a fine right wing politician.

There's no issue. It's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinions, no matter how fatuous they are.

Typical liberal illogic. Naturally all those EEEEEEEEEEEEE-vill corporate monsters who lust to defile the planet don't live here with their families and friends, and thus don't give a shit about the air and water. Give us a break, kid. A first-grader could see the fatuity of that "argument".

That's funny, because you didn't state it. What exactly is wrong with that argument? Are you saying big businesses place environment over money? Because if you are, you're dead wrong.

You're making the absolutely asinine statement that big businesses don't care about the environment, and are eager to poison the world that they, their employees and their families live in, in order to make a buck. Since no one can possibly be as stupid as you seem to be for even suggesting that, and still have the brainpower to walk and breathe at the same time, I'll assume that you're just another big-business-loathing nutjob.

Only if terrorists have nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Jeez!

Thank you, you just supported one of my arguments that you labelled as an "uneducated opinion" earlier.

I did none such, kid. You claimed that the ABM system was for fighting terrorists, I stated that it would do so only if the terrorists have ICBMs, and you're saying that I validated your argument. Your desperation to win ONE argument is not a pretty sight.

I'm honored by the comparison.

Are you on pain killers, too?

If you suffered the kind of pain that requires oxycontin, you'd be far less flippant about it, dumfuk.

BTW, I don't use pain-killers. I DO have a rep as an Internet pain-in-the-ass killer, and you're earning a high spot on my list.

You'll full of charges, but bereft of proof. How unusual.

I've posted plenty of proof. You, on the other hand, just deny, deny, and deny. Keep denying, it's very becoming of you.

You've proved NOTHING. You've spouted the standard leftist mantras, and they're not impressive.

I provided exactly as much evidence of my views as you did of yours.

No you didn't. All you're doing is finding new ways to call me stupid, biased, and wrong.

That would be superfluous, since the old ways suffice.

Inasmuch as there is no doubt that you have never listened to even five seconds of Rush's program, and your opinion of him is therefore shaped by the rantings of your leftist mentors, I'll consider your opinion of him to be of no relevance. But, I AM pleased to be compared to the Rushmeister.

I have, actually. Why do you think I hate him? The fact that you're pleased to be compared to him shows a lot about your character... He's a very evil man, you know.

Anyone that won't bend over and grab ankles every time a liberal says "I want..." is evil. However, Rush has over 20 million listeners a week on over 600 stations, including worldwide shortwave, and you're an anonymous poster on a Net BB. I'm certain that he'll sleep soundly tonight despite your opinion of him. So will I.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I think Bush knows what he needs to know and that's it...the problem is that our intelligence knew there was going to be an attack on WTC...did our President know?

They knew no such thing. The "intelligence" was that Arab zealots were training to be able to fly airliners into buildings. That's certainly all the info anyone needs to pinpoint the WTC as the target and September 11, 2001 as the date.

BTW, the same group of muzzie monsters tried once before to drop the WTC. The POTUS at the time took a few moments away from his Oval Office adultery to sound tough about catching those responsible. He used the same "We'll get you!" speech about the Khobar Towers, the US embassy, the USS Cole, etcetera. All he actually did was fire a cruise missile up a camel's ass and blow up a pharmaceutical plant. He had opportunities to have bin Laden handed to him on a platter, and he threw them away.

The WTC would still be there if XXX-42 had tended to his job instead of to his willy.

My, what a pissing match we've got going on here...are the two of you simply going to carry out this thread by seeing who comes up with the best insult? It reminds me a fuckin' school yard with little boys saying "I know you are but what am I?" I'm sure that both of you have valid reasons/facts for your opinions...so how about backing your opinions up with them instead of childish name calling? Entertaining as this is, neither of you are proving anything other than your own arrogance...grow up

<div class='quotetop'></div>

They knew no such thing. The "intelligence" was that Arab zealots were training to be able to fly airliners into buildings. That's certainly all the info anyone needs to pinpoint the WTC as the target and September 11, 2001 as the date

Do some more research Korman...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

The WTC would still be there if XXX-42 had tended to his job instead of to his willy. Korman

Agreed...much of the same can be said about every president since WWI