Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #1893707 -

Yeah I know, but this depends on whether you believe Bush or not doesn't it.

When we can't find any WMD in Iraq, the CIA can find no links of terrorism (indeed Saddam and Bin Laden are considered enemies) you have to think, maybe Bush wasn't telling the truth and they simply wanted control of the middle east.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: Xlea321]
    #1893902 -

Since when is bin Laden the only terrorist in the world? You seem to think al Qeada is the only terrorist organization the US wishes to get rid of.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1894119 -

So which terrorist organisation do you think we saved the world from by invading Iraq?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: Xlea321]
    #1894131 -

None as of yet. The war is not over yet either. My point was that you saying there is no link to Saddam and Osama does not mean he was not involved in terrorism. That is all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1894151 -

The CIA wern't saying it either.

If there had been the slightest evidence Saddam was involved in terrorism don't you think Bush and Blair would have been screaming it from the rooftops?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: Xlea321]
    #1894520 -

No, not really. It is pretty well known that he hates the West, and would be sympathetic to anyone trying to wreak havoc on the West. Hence the training camps we found, and his links with groups like Hamas.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1897183 -

shakta said:
:rolleyes:

We have been over this time and again. You just can't stand the fact that the 'imminent threat' argument, you libbies always put forth is bullshit, can you? 

I'm curious where I said that Bush said it or how my statement got construed to read that way. 

I'd def. call the Brit's claims of weapons being launched in 45 minutes parallel to "imminent threat".

Where is the bullshit?


--------------------
- uno

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1897187 -

shakta said:
No, not really. It is pretty well known that he hates the West, and would be sympathetic to anyone trying to wreak havoc on the West. Hence the training camps we found, and his links with groups like Hamas.

You know those training camps were in northern Iraq(in the no-fly zone patrolled by us), a few miles from Iran with a nice Kurdish buffer zone between it and Baghdad right?


--------------------
- uno

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: uno]
    #1897191 -

The bullshit comes when people state Bush said Iraq is an
"imminent" threat.

He said no such thing.

If the claim was he implied such a thing, then it would at least be open to debate.

Accuracy is key.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1897200 -

luvdemshrooms said:
The bullshit comes when people state Bush said Iraq is an
"imminent" threat.

He said no such thing.

If the claim was he implied such a thing, then it would at least be open to debate.

Accuracy is key. 

I never said that Bush said it.  I just tossed the phrase out there, as others have said it. 

Shakta just kind of took it on that lil tangent with the help of a few others.  :wink:

No bullshit from me.


--------------------
- uno

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: uno]
    #1897255 -

Quote:
I never said that Bush said it.


I never said you did.  :wink:


Quote:
Shakta just kind of took it on that lil tangent with the help of a few others.


Really? Who?  :lol:


Quote:
No bullshit from me. 


Good. You can be one of the few with enough sense to know the difference.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1897331 -

hey luv, I'm just wondering, why aren't you giving shakta a hard time for inaccurately assuming that uno's quote was attributable to Bush? I thought you said accuracy was key but apparantly only in some cases.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1897424 -

You mean this one?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

uno said:
Remember the term "imminent threat"?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You mean the term that Bush never said?






Shakta and Uno are both here to hash that out between themselves.

Besides, I don't see shakta as having assumed anything, it looks like a question to me.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1897450 -

haha, now we both know that wasn't a real question. it was him assmuming that uno was quoting Bush and then disputing it.

anyway you're right it doesn't involve me or you but since you seem to get so worked up over people being inaccurate and all...
bleh, accuracy, consistency, whatever.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1897459 -

This thread hasn't had anything to do with the topic for god knows how long now....


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1897509 -

infidelGOD said:
haha, now we both know that wasn't a real question. it was him assmuming that uno was quoting Bush and then disputing it.

anyway you're right it doesn't involve me or you but since you seem to get so worked up over people being inaccurate and all...
bleh, accuracy, consistency, whatever.



If uno did not mean it that way, I apologize. Of course his statement was totally ambiguous, and was not really attributed to anyone. It was in response to a statement of mine that was talking about the reasons for going to war. I took it as him saying someone said Iraq was an imminent threat especially since he put it in quotes. Since Bush has been falsely attributed to saying this I took it that way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1897526 -

ok. I think a lot of people make those ambiguous statements without actually quoting anyone because the media reported the Bush administration as saying that Iraq was an imminent threat. and of course the administration did nothing to correct this, which only reinforced that perception and that was probably the intended effect.

funny thing is before the war, it was the conservative publications that were saying that Iraq was an imminent threat and the liberals saying that Iraq was pretty harmless. now that the whole WMD thing hasen't panned out, things are reversed :tongue:
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1897548 -

I agree with that. Of course, like I have said, I always thought this was a preemptive war, which was really the center of the entire debate before the war.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: shakta]
    #1897558 -

well yeah it was a pre-emptive war - something we've never done before. in fact, we've never even gone to war based on an "imminent threat".

I guess people got used to this idea of a pre-emptive war, but it wasn't the norm just a few months ago. it's still a radical concept and maybe the situation in Iraq proves that it's not so wise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly on WMD's [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1897608 -

I dunno. I think the situation in Iraq, is better than most reporters would have us know. Yes there are problems, and we could use some help. This notion that it is this giant disaster is simply untrue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bill O'Reilly on marijuana
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 LearyfanS 2,878 74 09/05/03 05:05 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* WMD's Found in Iraq!!!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 SquattingMarmot 3,890 88 09/08/03 07:46 AM
by st0nedphucker
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Xlea321 7,119 106 09/23/03 03:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* o'reilly vs franken part deux afoaf 550 1 07/16/04 07:28 PM
by sir tripsalot
* Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rosie O'Donald mjshroomer 2,029 12 03/28/03 01:44 PM
by mjshroomer
* O'Reilly thinks using your rights may be Treasonous
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 5,263 56 08/18/05 11:33 PM
by trick
* Bill O'Reilly: "Bush sucks" Xochitl 2,236 14 02/10/04 11:45 PM
by EchoVortex
* So there were no WMD after all
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Xlea321 2,884 83 04/09/03 08:21 AM
by grib

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,917 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 38 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.