Saddam - sentenced to death for killing 148

[Strike 6,023]

Don't underestimate FFT - most people here are a lot smarter than you.

 

 

Oh, that's very possible. Surely you're not one of them though. However, if so many understand, how come noone is supporting your position? Is it because it's unsupportable?

[MDC 7,889]

Oh, that's very possible. Surely you're not one of them though. However, if so many understand, how come noone is supporting your position? Is it because it's unsupportable?

 

It was more of a question up for debate, but instead of getting any intelligent point/counterpoint I got a lot of knee-jerk "you're dumb!" and "scumbag!" and then a bunch of people wildly misreading my position and posting smileys and saying "owned"

 

Reason 3,479 why FFT is the single stupidest collection of people anywhere online.

 

Exempting Patsfatboy, Rosenpen1s and a few others who made an effort to not sound like total knee-jerk morons.

[Strike 6,023]

It was more of a question up for debate, but instead of getting any intelligent point/counterpoint I got a lot of knee-jerk "you're dumb!" and "scumbag!" and then a bunch of people wildly misreading my position and posting smileys and saying "owned"

 

Reason 3,479 why FFT is the single stupidest collection of people anywhere online.

 

Exempting Patsfatboy, Rosenpen1s and a few others who made an effort to not sound like total knee-jerk morons.

 

So a minute ago you said everyone understood your point and now they're all too dumb to get it? Man, you're all over the place. Of course, the reality could be that you're the dumb one and when you make an intelligent point someone will gladly have an intelligent discussion with you about that point. I think Gutterboy made a good point when he said

 

If you think Bush should be investigated for leading the country into war, fine, start a thread about it. But to suggest that he should Bush should be equally punished for killing thousands of Iraqis is asinine

 

That's why you're not getting support, not because the bored is full of idiots.

[MDC 7,889]

So a minute ago you said everyone understood your point and now they're all too dumb to get it? Man, you're all over the place. Of course, the reality could be that you're the dumb one and when you make an intelligent point someone will gladly have an intelligent discussion with you about that point. I think Gutterboy made a good point when he said

 

If you think Bush should be investigated for leading the country into war, fine, start a thread about it. But to suggest that he should Bush should be equally punished for killing thousands of Iraqis is asinine

 

That's why you're not getting support, not because the bored is full of idiots.

 

Except that I never said Bush should be equally punished. Other than just totally missing my point you're 100% correct.

[Strike 6,023]

Except that I never said Bush should be equally punished. Other than just totally missing my point you're 100% correct.

 

You are truly an idiot. Remove that word if you must. The point is still valid. Work with me here. I'm trying to help you get the intelligent discussion you supposedly want to desperately

[Snuff 10]

Except that I never said Bush should be equally punished.

 

So why should he be punished at all? And I would like to see proof of the crime(s) committed.

TIA

[MDC 7,889]

You are truly an idiot. Remove that word if you must. The point is still valid. Work with me here. I'm trying to help you get the intelligent discussion you supposedly want to desperately

 

Dude, you are the last person here I'd count on for an intelligent discussion of anythang!

 

So why should he be punished at all? And I would like to see proof of the crime(s) committed.

TIA

 

If you don't think that Bush mislead us into war, or if you don't think misleading us into a war that was not based on self-defense is a crime, then you probably don't think he should be punished. I think the evidence is pretty clear that Bush did mislead us into war and I think that's probably on par with the offense that Saddam is going to be hung for. I'm not saying Bush should be hung, but removed from office and criminally prosecuted - sure.

[Strike 6,023]

 

If you don't think that Bush mislead us into war, or if you don't think misleading us into a war that was not based on self-defense is a crime, then you probably don't think he should be punished. I think the evidence is pretty clear that Bush did mislead us into war and I think that's probably on par with the offense that Saddam is going to be hung for. I'm not saying Bush should be hung, but removed from office and criminally prosecuted - sure.

 

And yet you still can't cite even one "law" he broke. You're making them up to justify your belief that he should be prosecuted. Classic

[GutterBoy 2,900]

if you don't think misleading us into a war that was not based on self-defense is a crime

 

I don't think it is, and you are only assuming it is so you don't know either, therefore you really have no argument, do you?

[Snuff 10]

I think the evidence is pretty clear that Bush did mislead us into war

 

Let's see the proof then. That's all I ask.

[MDC 7,889]

And yet you still can't cite even one "law" he broke. You're making them up to justify your belief that he should be prosecuted. Classic

 

I already said it's a moral question -

 

Is Bush misleading us into a war that was not based on self-defense and resulted in the death of thousands a lesser offense than Saddam ordering the death of 148 people?

 

So far a lot of people are telling me they don't believe that Bush mislead us, or saying that it's not a crime because he has not been prosecuted.

 

Nobody really explaining to me why one is morally better than the other.

 

I don't think it is

 

Then I guess you are done here - have a nice New Years.

 

Let's see the proof then. That's all I ask.

 

I said there is no proof. I said there is overwhelming evidence. It's been posted here a billion times over.

[Strike 6,023]

I already said it's a moral question -

 

Is Bush misleading us into a war that was not based on self-defense and resulted in the death of thousands a lesser offense than Saddam ordering the death of 148 people?

 

So far a lot of people are telling me they don't believe that Bush mislead us, or saying that it's not a crime because he has not been prosecuted.

 

Nobody really explaining to me why one is morally better than the other.

 

You just said bush should be removed from office and criminally prosecuted. You can't do that unless there's a law broken. Whether Bush misled us is irrelevant. You don't get prosecuted for misleading, you get prosecuted for breaking laws.

 

If you want to go down the moral road issue the question is whether I, or other people who would respond, believe we should be there regardless of what reason we were given. It's possible that some people think we should be there whether it's for the reasons given to us by the president or other reasons. In that case it would not be likely that those people would argue that he should be prosecuted criminally or morally.

[Snuff 10]

I said there is no proof. I said there is overwhelming evidence. It's been posted here a billion times over.

 

Saddam - proof and evidence of the 148, and evidence out the ass of other attrocities.

GB - no proof, but "overwhelming evidence" (in your eyes).

 

Yet you are comparing?

Riiiiiight.

 

[What is the deal? 1]

Saddam - proof and evidence of the 148, and evidence out the ass of other attrocities.

GB - no proof, but "overwhelming evidence" (in your eyes).

 

Yet you are comparing?

Riiiiiight.

 

I'm still waiting for the "overwhelming evidence"

 

If Bush is going down, then he should probably take Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc... with him. They had the same access to intelligence he did, yet still came to the same conclusion

 

This is a tired argument. I can't believe people still waste their time with it, but I guess nothing is beneath MDC

[MDC 7,889]

GB - no proof, but "overwhelming evidence" (in your eyes).

 

And the eyes of the 60% or so of Americans who believe Bush at best deliberately mislead us into war; at worst outright lied us into Iraq. I guess they're all crazy too.

[What is the deal? 1]

And the eyes of the 60% or so of Americans who believe Bush at best deliberately mislead us into war; at worst outright lied us into Iraq. I guess they're all crazy too.

Opinions of 60% of Americans (if that # is even accurate) that get their information from their newspapers, evening talk shows, and CNN is not "overwhelming evidence"

[Strike 6,023]

Opinions of 60% of Americans (if that # is even accurate) that get their information from their newspapers, evening talk shows, and CNN is not "overwhelming evidence"

 

To those in the steno pool it qualifies

[Uh-huh 0]

To those in the steno pool it qualifies

MDC, be sure to bump this thread after January 9th, 2007.

[Toro 3]

MDC, be sure to bump this thread after January 9th, 2007.

 

I will also bump this thread after the democrats spend all their time and effort "getting back" at the last administration instead of fulfilling their campaign promises and they get destroyed in the next presidential election.

[Uh-huh 0]

I will also bump this thread after the democrats spend all their time and effort "getting back" at the last administration instead of fulfilling their campaign promises and they get destroyed in the next presidential election.

By all means, do so. It's your constitutional right. Just like it was the GOP's right to spend lots of time and taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton because he lied about having sex.

 

Of course, in the minds of the right-wing, a BJ is a major crime, while getting us involved in a futile war under false pretenses is no big deal... as long as we have tax cuts.

[Toro 3]

By all means, do so. It's your constitutional right. Just like it was the GOP's right to spend lots of time and taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton because he lied about having sex.

 

Of course, in the minds of the right-wing, a BJ is a major crime, while getting us involved in a futile war under false pretenses is no big deal... as long as we have tax cuts.

 

If you believe that those preceedings were about a BJ and not perjury, then that explains everything about your ability to have a rational conversation.

[Strike 6,023]

MDC, be sure to bump this thread after January 9th, 2007.

 

Is MDC expecting a promotion at the beginning of the year?

[Mrdirt73 0]

You're gonna need some better bait.

 

 

At this point I have to call BS on this claim. Sorry GutterBoy.

[Uh-huh 0]

If you believe that those preceedings were about a BJ and not perjury, then that explains everything about your ability to have a rational conversation.

Do you know how to read? Or rather, do you have some sort of blind spot preventing you from understanding what you read? Or is someone (e.g. Recliner "Fluffy" Lemming) just reading these posts out loud to you?

 

Let me help:

 

By all means, do so. It's your constitutional right. Just like it was the GOP's right to spend lots of time and taxpayer dollars trying to bring down Bill Clinton because he lied about having sex.

 

Of course, in the minds of the right-wing, a BJ is a major crime, while getting us involved in a futile war under false pretenses is no big deal... as long as we have tax cuts.

[Toro 3]

Do you know how to read?

 

I read good, thank you very much.

 

What I don't understand is the fact that you think that Bush lied. I am under the impression that while he may have talked up certain aspects of the intel, all the information used to go forward was available to members of congress, along with much of the Bush administration.

 

How can you accuse Bush of telling lies about the information presented when he did not have exclusive access to the data, thus allowing others to disprove his "lies"?

 

ETA: Nice red mark. I was actually commenting to your assertion that "a BJ is a major crime". It is not. Perjury is.

[kpbuckeye 3]

 

 

Let me help: I am a focking retard.

 

well said

[yojimbo81 0]

I don't seem to recall Clinton going on trial for killing innocent Serbs.

[Uh-huh 0]

I read good, thank you very much.

 

What I don't understand is the fact that you think that Bush lied. I am under the impression that while he may have talked up certain aspects of the intel, all the information used to go forward was available to members of congress, along with much of the Bush administration.

 

How can you accuse Bush of telling lies about the information presented when he did not have exclusive access to the data, thus allowing others to disprove his "lies"?

 

ETA: Nice red mark. I was actually commenting to your assertion that "a BJ is a major crime". It is not. Perjury is.

Nice try, Toro. I see your reading skills haven't improved.

 

What I find amazing is how so-called rational people still deny today they were sold a bill of goods by Bush and his gang prior to the Iraqui invasion. To the true believers, it doesn't matter at all. Naiveté, or cynicism? Only y'all know. I think it's just that you folks do not have the balls to admit you were had, and now you want to dismiss it as unimportant.

 

What's that saying? "There are none so blind as those who do want to see." But that's OK. The rest of us will see for you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

MDC has been spinning faster than Torrid on meth this entire thread.

 

First he is sad Saddam gets the death penalty while Bush somehow skates for killing more people than Saddam was convicted of.

 

He even questions the existance of mass graves in Iraq.

 

Then he says Bush shouldn't be executed, but should be convicted because innocent civilians have died, although he can't cite a law Bush has broken.

 

When it is brought to his attention that happens in every war he backtracks and says he is merely providing a venue for discussion on a "moral" basis.

 

There is "overwhelming evidence" Bush lied, but no "proof".

 

Everyone else on this bored who says he is an idiot is wrong, and he is right because of his overwhelming evidence he has brought to this thread.

 

Did I miss anything?

[Toro 3]

Nice try, Toro. I see your reading skills haven't improved.

 

What I find amazing is how so-called rational people still deny today they were sold a bill of goods by Bush and his gang prior to the Iraqui invasion. To the true believers, it doesn't matter at all. Naiveté, or cynicism? Only y'all know. I think it's just that you folks do not have the balls to admit you were had, and now you want to dismiss it as unimportant.

 

What's that saying? "There are none so blind as those who do want to see." But that's OK. The rest of us will see for you.

 

Uh, were you going to address my question about access to the intel or just sound stupid some more?

[Nevada Crimmins 0]

3,000 soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of Bush's policies - is that better than ordering about 150 dead?

 

LOL. What a toolbag. It's us vs. them. MDC chooses "them". You cry an awful lot, you know that MDC? Have you always been such a little baby? Here's an idea, MDC, if you think you're so smart. Organize a petition, and get Bush on trial. Do whatever it takes. You have all the ideas. Afella that runs his mouth like you obviously can get things done. Get him found guilty like Sadaam was. Either you will do that, and be the man you try to come across as, or you will end up looking like a complete toolbag.

 

What's it gonna be?

 

My money says you are nothing but a whiner that cries at pretty much about everything, just looking for something in life to complain about....and will do nothing about this "travesty" that you speak of.

[MDC 7,889]

I will also bump this thread after the democrats spend all their time and effort "getting back" at the last administration instead of fulfilling their campaign promises and they get destroyed in the next presidential election.

 

I love how the right-wing spin machine is already laying the groundwork for a "witch hunt" defense for when the Democrats investigate prewar intelligence and fraud & abuse in Iraq. Predictable.

 

LOL. What a toolbag. It's us vs. them. MDC chooses "them". You cry an awful lot, you know that MDC? Have you always been such a little baby? Here's an idea, MDC, if you think you're so smart. Organize a petition, and get Bush on trial. Do whatever it takes. You have all the ideas. Afella that runs his mouth like you obviously can get things done. Get him found guilty like Sadaam was. Either you will do that, and be the man you try to come across as, or you will end up looking like a complete toolbag.

 

What's it gonna be?

 

My money says you are nothing but a whiner that cries at pretty much about everything, just looking for something in life to complain about....and will do nothing about this "travesty" that you speak of.

 

Resubmit this under your normal handle and I might respond, coward.

[Uh-huh 0]

Uh, were you going to address my question about access to the intel or just sound stupid some more?

Right-wing rules 101: "If confronted, change the subject by seizing upon a part of a post, twisting it around, post something completely stupid about it, then demand answers to try to force the other person to defend themselves."

 

Feel free to post when you actually have something intelligent to say, chum. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm an optimist.

[Toro 3]

Right-wing rules 101: "If confronted, change the subject by seizing upon a part of a post, twisting it around, post something completely stupid about it, then demand answers to try to force the other person to defend themselves."

 

Feel free to post when you actually have something intelligent to say, chum. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm an optimist.

 

Left Wing Rules: Don't answer the guy's question.

 

For the reading impaired:

What I don't understand is the fact that you think that Bush lied. I am under the impression that while he may have talked up certain aspects of the intel, all the information used to go forward was available to members of congress, along with much of the Bush administration.

 

How can you accuse Bush of telling lies about the information presented when he did not have exclusive access to the data, thus allowing others to disprove his "lies"?

 

and you claim I can't read good.

[MDC 7,889]

You're gonna need some better bait.

 

You think?