By Beauty Damned

Would you feel more comfortable with a candidate that followed the tenets of Satan? Or Charles Manson? Or Marilyn Manson?

There is a seperation of church & state - all these people (and candidates) are saying is that they utilize all aspects of their lives to help them make decisions. At least, that's what I get from them.

And don't forget: Kerry is one of those dreaded Catholics....

You need to listen a little harder to what the candidates are saying Mikey.

Kerry has made it clear that his religious faith cannot be grounds for pushing legislation nor can he force others to follow "rules" that apply to him as a Catholic. And I don't see anything dreaded about it. My grandfather was a very good Catholic. He was also a democrat and a legislator. He did not allow his religion to dictate how he chose to vote in the legislature.

George Bush, on the other hand, wants to take away a woman's constitutional right to choose, based on his religious belief that life begins at conception. He wants to inhibit the progress of science for the same reason. He wants to amend the constitution to prohibit gays from marrying because it is his RELIGIOUS belief that marriage is only something that should occur between a man and a woman. Those are just three of the many examples that Bush believes in the merging of Church and State. Do you not see what's happening here Mikey? Apparently not. Because your head is still buried in ten feet of sand.

arguing any more with these dimwits is pointless. they will NEVER see the wrong doing the "leadership" of this country is doing.
personally, i think the gop has gone so far right, that is is making people show their true racist intentions. do I think most repub are racists? yes, i do.

I understood Bush's desire about gay marriage was to start the amendment process - the finalization would be up to the states.

So instead of one person making a decision, it's everyone making it.

Or are you afraid of the states making a decision such as this?

As for 'merging' Church and State: when I'm told to go to church every Sunday or face punitive actions, then I'll be concerned

Stephen Baldwin..I think you're correct on that..I read him the other day..he is backing Bush solely based on religion..he said that religion was slowly being wiped away from our society...That kind of shit aggravates me to no end...At the moment I am terribley stuck in the middle..I never thought I would see the day but my personal beliefs regarding religion, homosexuality, and the environment are slowly changing my views on my once beloved party...

No, I am afraid of ANY government getting involved in moral decisions where the church is concerned. Am I for gay marriage? Personally, no. I think marriage should be a union between man and woman. But that is a decisions for the church to make, not the fed, state or local government. Civil unions are different - it is the legal recognition of a couple, and I am for that.
Why does everything have to be black and white for you Mikey or what does it have to come to such drastic things in order for you to see the common snese side of things? Why do we have to wait until the government tells us to go to church? Isn't it enough that Bush wants to fund faith based programs (yet the church is still exempt for taxes, which I don't get). Isn't it enough that this is a faith based administration? Aren't we supposed to be secular? Don't you think this only enrages muslims evern more when Bush makes his religious statements? DOesn;t it bother you more that he isn't really religious - he is just using religion for political purposes?
Or don't you care? As long as he is waging war, you are happy. Is that what it is? Because I honestly thinl that men like you have the one primal neanderthal thing in common and that is why you like Bush - as long as a war is going on than there is something to be macho about.
Or is it that you don't like anyone who doesn't look or think like you?
What is it Mikey?

Which question? You spout off like a PMSing chick with a ton of questions.....

how about all of them?

"As for 'merging' Church and State: when I'm told to go to church every Sunday or face punitive actions, then I'll be concerned."

I find it really sad, Mikey, that you would wait until things get as bad as they could possibly get before being concerned. Ever heard of foresight? Signs of things to come? To every ending there is a beginning? Nip it in the bud?

The indications of Bush, his administration and religious right constituents making one attempt after another on a daily basis to tear down the wall between church and state are as plain to see as the day is long.

The separation of church and state is not limited to the worst case scenario of actually having the government FORCE you to go to church. It includes enacting legislation which is based purely in religious beliefs which slowly but surely erodes our constitutional rights and crosses the bounderies between church and state. I tell you Mikey, the more and more I have these kinds of exchanges with you, the more and more I think you just can't grasp some very simple concepts, or that you don't truly understand the significance of our constitution. You wouldn't be the first, and you certainly won't be the last.

Let me spell it out for you: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENACT LEGISLATION OR ALTER THE CONSTITUTION DUE TO THAT WHICH IS BASED SOLELY ON ONE RELIGIOUS TENET.

The purpose of the separation of church and state is EXACTLY to prevent things such as writing faith based discrimination into the constitution. Not just to prevent the government from ordering you to go to church!

I was raised Tibetan Buddhist, my grandparents on my mom's side are Mormon, on my dad's side they are Catholic.

I do not believe that marriage is something that should only occur between a man and a woman because that was not indoctrinated to me growing up. I was raised to believe that all people are to be afforded equal rights because we are all human beings. If any church decides not to marry people based on whatever reason, that's up to them, not the government. It is a religious issue to be dealt with in a religious context, not a political one.

If Christians believe differently due to their faith, why should they be permitted to impose that on me in the form of written laws? Or my grandparents? Or my cousins? Or my siblings?

The issues I mentioned are ones that should not even be within the political spectrum. Gay marriage is an issue for churchs to decide, not states, not countries. A woman should not be forced to give birth to a child because someone else's religion says that it is a sin to do otherwise. People should not be denied the progress and innovation and advantages of science because some else's religion says that certain types of research are immoral.

You republicans talk about how you want smaller government. You want the government to stay out of your personal lives. I don't understand how that is cohesive with the belief that our government should be permitted to meddle in the personal life choices of individuals which are dictated by religion and all kinds of other factors which differ from person to person. That is the point of democracy! That is what is written in our Constitution! Conservatives of today do not believe in the classic ideals of the republican party. They believe in an invasive, all knowing, all ruling government. Something has profoundly changed. And it should concern you, Mikey. The fact that it doesn't, only confirms that which I already suspected, which is that you do not believe in democracy.

If I wanted to live in a country where one set of religious "rules" governed all the people, I would move to Iran or Malaysia. But I live in the United States. And I love it. I don't intend to sit by while someone manipulates and attempts to revoke my basic rights. You can. But I won't.

Mria - your insight and wisdom are wasted on the ignorant.

You will never get these fools to see the ire of their ways.

They call someone who changes their mind, a flip flopper. Well, as the old saying goes - "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

The "ire" of their ways?

HAHAHAHA.

You sound even dumber when you try to sound intellectual.

Holy fuck, it's a good thing you don't realize how fucking stupid you are, NeoCom.

its a good thing nobody takes you seriously, dickface.

Yes. I've seen the "ire" of my ways...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a tool.

I think it's fucking hilarious that Maria lends any credence to a show by Howard Stern. You got to be kidding? The best you got is "Shock Jock" Howard Stern? Gimme a fucking break. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to associate myself with him or Franken. But hey, to each his own.

I don't know about you sometimes Maria. Maybe someday, just maybe, you'll recgonize the "ire" in your ways.....

Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhh ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

notice how they altogether avoid the questions in the posting below this one.

We're still coming to grips with the "ire" of our ways...

HAHAHAHAHA

You're comedy gold, NeoCom. A true spokesperson for your ideals.

Gordon. Maybe one day you'll realize how sad you are. As long as I've known you, you've never been able to articulate a decent argument in response to any post. You just always come out the face with some pathetically obvious attempt to override a civil discussion with sarcasm and insults.

As for whether I lend any "credence" to Howard Stern's show, I don't think I said that. I said I heard an idiot on there, probably an idiot much like yourself, who was unable to articulate a good reason for his voting for Bush that couldn't easily be dispelled by the facts. Unfortunately for him, Al Franken is educated about the facts, and much better at debating. It's not about lending credence to any source. It's about listening to two people argue and deciding which one knows what he's talking about and which one doesn't.

I'm amazed you don't drown in the shallow waters of your own cranium.

Again, my question stands unanswered - if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.

notice how they can't answer it (nor can they edit the comments here)

Can't answer it? It's a complete lie. Why bother to answer it.

The explosives were lost by the IAEA, not the US.

You've just learned the "ire" of your ways.

Oh, I didn't know the IAEA was fighting the war in Iraq these days. They must have a really bad army then I guess since they let those stock piles get lost right from out under their noses. So what is the US doing there then if they aren't securing the country? Ah, spreading freedom by gunpoint.

Get real. My question still stands - if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.

Holy fuck you're retarded.

The explosives were missing before we even got there. You should get your facts someplace other than moveontocommunism.org.

Class Dismissed.

You've been schooled. Not educated, but schooled.

then where did they go? why weren't we, the big bad us military, guarding this stock pile?

my question still stands if they couldn't secure a small stockpile like this, how would they have secured all the supposed WMD's they talked about in the first place? Shit, they can't even secure oil pipelines.

Your question has been answered. It's been knocked over.

THERE WAS NO STOCKPILE. IT WAS GONE BEFORE WE GOT THERE.

Why weren't we gaurding it to begin with?

Maybe because we weren't in Iraq?

You can't be this stupid. Seriously. You can't be.

Oh God, Maria. You kill me!

You call me sad while you cite Al Franken and Howard Stern to assert your views?

What would that make you?

Not necessarily sad, but most certainly STUPID.

I don't know how this argument got over to this thread!

Geoffrey: at what point in the last fifteen years have we NOT been in Iraq or keeping a hawk's eye on them in some capacity? You fucking Bush supporters don't want to take responsibility or accountability for anything! Just like your dear leader.

Here's my question: how has Bush made the world safer?

"VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein's dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday."

Last time I checked, we were in Iraq.

"You call me sad while you cite Al Franken and Howard Stern to assert your views?"

What are you talking about Gordon? I didn't cite them. I didn't assert my views in conjunction with anything they said. I pointed out that the Bush supporter was an idiot. That's pretty much the extent of it. He would have been an idiot on any show, he just happened to be on Howard Stern and the person he happened to be attempting to debate was Al Franken.

I really wish you would learn to read so I didn't have to feel like I was explaining something to a five year old every time I exchange words with you.

you are explaining something to someone who thinks and acts like a 5 year old.

Maria:

The UN and the IAEA were in Iraq. The US Government wasn't.

My God, you both are batty. One of you cites two comedians as Iraq experts and blames the US for UN fuck ups, the other is her echo.

Ahhh, I see, NeoCom, you're reading yesterdays news. Try getting with the program.

"Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day and could not the material."

"One of you cites two comedians as Iraq experts"

Great. Geoffrey can't read either.

"The US Government wasn't"

The U.S. government is a member of the U.N. dumbass. They knew the place was there. They knew it was unsecured. And they didn't care.

Again, how has Bush made us safer?

We don't want to take accountability or responsibilty? We're over there mopping up the mess the UN made in their greed and incompetence.

It's you and your cronies that are afraid to step up. Had you run the show, we'd be suffering more 9/11's as we speak - sippin' on a Starbucks while you're at it.

You've got a straw view of the world Maria. Theres' more to life than the ghetto in New York.

Are you for fucking real?

Either you realize how fucking stupid that statement is and you feel compelled to argue it anyway rather than admit you are dead wrong, or you really are dumber than I thought.

So you are stating the US alone is responsible for what the UN does? What about the IAEA, who was tasked with securing that stockpile, are we responsible for them, too?

I should be saying there's more to life than your trailor park.

What mess did the U.N. make? The weapons inspectors were right all along? And what does Iraq have to do with 9/11 ya fuckin ingrate?

YOU are not mopping up any mess in Iraq. And are you trying to tell me that it's less of a mess now than it was before we went in there? If I thought you'd ever had a mind, I'd say you've lost it. But I know better.

"you are explaining something to someone who thinks and acts like a 5 year old."

You'd be the expert, huh Coach Nunya?

No Geoffrey, but since the U.S. was the one who was itching to invade Iraq and trying to scrape up evidence of a weapons program on a daily basis, and the U.S. is the one that waged A WAR against Iraq, you would think they would have an interest in securing those weapons, no?

why can't they even secure the oil pipelines?

HAHAHAHAHA. NeoCunt has changed his argument. You've been schooled!

Maria:

Sure. We have an interest in securing those weapons. It's too bad they were gone before we got there. Had the IAEA and the UN done their jobs, we wouldn't have had to worry about it.

Who knows how long they were gone. Who knows why the UN and IAEA gave them to whoever has them know. It's just one more example of UN corruption and another compelling reason to vote for a candidate who won't turn our safety over to them.

"I didn't cite them."

BACKPEDAL. Yes you did. You cited the interview / set-up debate. Are you this blind to yourself or just arrogant? How the fuck ANYONE can lend credence to Sterns interviews is beyond me. Are you fmailiar with Hank - the Drunk Angry Dwarf or any of his other daily interviewers? You got to be kidding me.

DISTRACT. And then she tries to change the topic to "how has Bush made us safer?" You can always tell when Maria is beat cause she'll try to shift the topic.

Class dismissed.

"but since the U.S. was the one who was itching to invade Iraq and trying to scrape up evidence of a weapons program"

Are you suggesting that no one belived in the WMD porgrams but BushCO?

you spin it right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round....

I didn't cite them. I cited the idiot. And it wasn't an interview. The idiot was a producer of Stern's show and he interjected his idiotic views.

And do I have to remind you again that Hank the Angry Dwarf is DEAD you fucking retard? Stop talking about the guy as if he's alive.

And I didn't change the topic when I asked how Bush has made us safer. That was actually the topic of the thread.

Heh, NeoCunt has such a loss for words he's singing. Now THAT'S a schooling!

You haven't schooled anyone Geoffrey. Nor Gordon. You've both done what you always do. Divert the debate and try to spin things around. I've never seen two people more afraid of the truth. Truth is to Geoff and Gordon as garlic is to vampires.

Spin what? I'm nailing you two to specifics and you can't hang, can you?

It's lunchtime anyhow. Shouldn't you be in the soup line right now Nunya? Getting that dole my taxes pay for?

You can't even comprehend specifics Gordon. All you know is schoolyard attacks.

And there's no dole in the U.S. That's Australia you're thinking of.

Divert? Spin? I attacked and dispelled each of the points directly, factually, and individually. You were schooled. You were schooled so bad I almost feel sorry for you. You were bitchslapped so hard you don't even have an argument anymore.

You're so entrenched in your own dillusions that you don't even know when you've done nothing except spin around in circles and fall down.

The fact remains, Bush did not take proper precautions to secure those weapons. The other fact remains that Bush has fouled our foreign policy so badly that it's in shambles. Your arguments fail. Your asshole president has failed and in the end, you do nothing but flop around like a fish out of water trying to convince yourself that you're still in the tank.

Afraid of the truth?

When I go looking for truth, I'll be damned if I'll dial up the Howard Stern Show!

Ha! You kill me.

EVADE:

"but since the U.S. was the one who was itching to invade Iraq and trying to scrape up evidence of a weapons program"

Are you suggesting that no one belived in the WMD porgrams but BushCO?

The fact remains, Bush did not take proper precautions to secure those weapons

So you're saying we should have invaded Iraq sooner.

The other fact remains that Bush has fouled our foreign policy so badly that it's in shambles

Gordon was right. You do try to change the topic after you get your ass kicked.

You've been bitchslapped so hard you aren't even making sense anymore. You're just rambling.

"You can't even comprehend specifics"

You got to be shitting me? What specifics? Some ramblings from the "Shock Jock" Howard Stern?

That's like watching Married with Children to discover culture.

Wappppppppppiiiiiiiiiishhhhhhhhhh!

Gordon:
You kill yourself. I don't have to do a thing.

Yah, I listen to the Howard Stern show to find out what's going on. You moron. I listen to Howard Stern so that I can laugh and talk about what a jackhole he is. For the truth, I just pay attention to what's going on in the world around me.

If I want to listen to idiots argue, I turn on Howard Stern, or visit my own blog. If I want the truth, I examine reality.

Geoffrey: I didn't say we should have invaded Iraq sooner. I said we should have made sure that any and all weapons facilities were secure at the time of invasion.

As for weather BushCo was the only ones who believed there were WMDs, they were the people who fabricated evidence and told lies in order to get others to believe it. No doubt, they fooled many.

"If I want to listen to idiots argue, I turn on Howard Stern, or visit my own blog."

Hey! The sense of humor is back!

I didn't say we should have invaded Iraq sooner. I said we should have made sure that any and all weapons facilities were secure at the time of invasion.

The weapons were gone at the time of the invasion. How could we have made facilities secure if we weren't there? Ask Saddam to keep an eye on them for us until we arrived? Maybe he could have done a better job than the IAEA.

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Bush was lying to people in 98?

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

Bush fooled her from Texas!

John Kerry's speech on the senate floor prior to Iraq invasion

Get it straight.

Not letting Saddam succeed in rebuilding a weapons program does not mean launching a pre-emptive war before exhausting all other options.

Now you shift the topic to pre-emptive wars?

We were discussing wther or not WMD's exist only a moment ago.

You didn't answer the question.

How could we have made those facilities secure if we weren't there?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Bush fools our great ally - France.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Two years prior to the election, Bush pulls the wool over President Clinton's eyes.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Stern Show IS your reality.

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Bush even fools Hillary with his lies.

"Now you shift the topic to pre-emptive wars?"

You can't be that dumb Gordon. The topic is Iraq dumbass. It's not shifting topic, it's bringing up a relevant point.

None of these people that you quoted said that Saddam was in possession of WMDs, only that he aspired to acquire them. None of those people you quoted stated that we should not exhaust all reasonable options before going to war.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush lied in his State of the Union speech about yellow cake uranium, knowing full well that it was a lie. Bush and Cheney wanted to oust Saddam from day one in the White House and they found a way. Teenage boys prematurely ejaculating all over our foreign policy.

They didn't plan well and once they got in there it turned into a nightmare in no time at all.

I never said that no one else was concerned about Saddam and his weapons capability, but if the inspectors had been allowed to finish their work and BushCo hadn't fabricated so much intelligence to support their bid to go to war, things might have been dealt with in a much less costly and botched manner.

You didn't answer the question.

How could we have made those facilities secure if we weren't there?

just got back from lunch, "gordon"

Thanks dude!

*Edited*

Geoffrey:

Oh but we were.

We were in Iraq before the war? Could you show me where you got that info?

Are you saying that Churac, Bill, Hillary, Kerry, and Lieberman to mention a few - are also lying about the existence of his WMD and it's associated programs?

The fact that it doesn't, only confirms that which I already suspected, which is that you do not believe in democracy.

I didn't say that I supported an amendment that defines marriage - I could care less one way or another. I personally could not care whether someone is a lesbian, homosexual, or something in between - I judge people on their character and their actions.

I was just getting at the point that it might be President Bush that suggests it, but in the end it is the states that have to ratify that amendment.

Geoffrey:

I believe the weapons went missing subsequent to our invasion.

Gordon:

If you can point me to one place where those people said, discounting the information they received from the Bush administration, that Saddam difinitively HAS WMDs and that the only way to stop him would be with a pre-emptive attack, we can discuss this further. But since you have provided no such thing, it's not up for discussion.

Mikey, that doesn't change the fact that the very proposal by President Bush is a violation of the separation of church and state. THAT is what should concern you. I'm not talking about your personal beliefs. I honestly don't care whether you think gay marriage is wrong or right or should be allowed or not. It shouldn't be up for political discussion at all.

I believe the weapons went missing subsequent to our invasion.

Ahhhh, so your entire argument is based upon what you "believe". I get it.

No wonder it was so easy to make you look stupid.

Class Dismissed.

That's what ALL of our arguments are based on. What are you dense?

I believe the U.N. I believe John Kerry. You believe the bullshit that comes out of the White House.

You believe the weapons were stolen before the invasion. I believe they were stolen afterwards. Because I believe my sources and you believe yours. It's not rocket science and it doesn't make me stupid.

That's what ALL of our arguments are based on. What are you dense?

All YOUR arguments. Mine are based on fact. That's why you look dumb, I look smug.

You believe the bullshit that comes out of the White House.

I believe the people that were there. The material was gone. Period. End of story. Fact, not fiction.

That's not a fact. It's speculation.

Actually no, it's fact. Straight from the mouths of the people that were there.

People propose all sorts of silly laws all the time; they get shot down really quick.

Are you afraid of what the states might do with such an amendment, whether it is 'legal' or not?

I really don't want to get into a seperation of church & state argument, but up to what point do you allow the government to govern by republic methods, i.e. let your elected representatives do the work and not micro-manage them?

prove it, geoff.

mikey, the whole point is there shouldn't BE any argument of seperation of church and state. why there is, is either a political diversion, or just plain fucked up. or both.

You're obviously retarded.

"It was inspected frequently and often by the IAEA, and it was mentioned in several statements by Mr. ElBaradei to the Security Council. It was of concern directly after the invasion, when it was clear that the main nuclear site, Tuwaitha, was being looted. And so this was a site that we did alert the US to as one important to protect.
When asked what the US response to the warnings was, Fleming responded: "It received this information, there's been ... there was no comment."

President Bush did not immediately respond to the news while campaigning Monday with former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani in Colorado. As The New York Times reports, Bush's aides "tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives."

"In several sessions with reporters, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, alternately insisted that Mr. Bush "wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this" and tried to distance the president from knowledge of the issue, saying Mr. Bush was informed of the disappearance only within the last 10 days. White House officials said they could not explain why warnings from the international agency in May 2003 about the stockpile's vulnerability to looting never resulted in action. At one point, Mr. McClellan pointed out that "there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Source: Christian Science Monitor

THEY WERE WARNED THAT THE SITE NEEDED TO BE SECURED. THEY DID NOTHING.

Now that's a fact.

Obviously, YOU'RE retarded.

Communist News Network

(CNN) -- The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a television news crew embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material could not be found when American troops arrived.

Ahhhh yes. People who were there.

Difference between my beliefs and your beliefs, Geoffrey, is that I believe the facts and you believe the lies.

Why would I believe a television news crew over inspectors who were also there?

The weapons were long gone before they got there. To secure them, they would have had to invade much earlier. Is that your stance on the issue? We invaded too late?

Now THAT'S a fact. An eye witness substantiated fact.

Put that in your Christian Science Monitor and smoke it.

Class dismissed.

The inspectors were NOT there.

Now THAT's a fact.

"The weapons were long gone before they got there. To secure them, they would have had to invade much earlier. Is that your stance on the issue? We invaded too late?"

I don't believe that to be true. According to inspectors, when they checked the facility in March 2003 just prior to the invasion, the facility was still sealed as they had left it the previous time. It wasn't until May that it became clear it was being looted. When the U.S. government was alerted to this fact, they failed to take action. Please explain that to me.

How on earth are you going to tell me they weren't there? Okay. Tit for tat, neither was your fictional news crew that was "imbedded with the U.S. Military."

I don't believe that to be true.

Oops. More of your beliefs. Let's get back on the subject of facts.

Fact: In March when inspectors were last there, the explosives were not checked.

Fact: On April 9th, Baghdad was taken.

Fact: On April 10th, the facility was taken.

Fact: When the facility was taken, the explosives were gone.

Fact: When the looting was reported in May, there were no explosives to loot.

Just the facts, maam, just the facts. Your "beliefs" are shit.

Don't tell me my beliefs are shit. It's fucking rude and I'm putting up with a lot of your crap today as it is.

In March when inspectors were last there, the explosives were not checked? The facility was still sealed as it had been previously left. There was no reason to believe that it had been disturbed.

On April 9th, Baghdad was taken? The war was already underway at that point, beginning in March. Why did we not secure this facility with guards at the time of the invasion?

On April 10th, the facility was taken? Irrelevant. It should have been secured prior.

Fact: When the facility was taken, the explosives were gone.

That is not a fact. NBC's news website quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

Fact: When the looting was reported in May, there were no explosives to loot.

That's not a fact either.

What IS a fact is that when the U.S. government was notified that the facility needed to be secured, this warning was ignored, just like so many others.

Stuff that in your ass with the rest of your "facts."

Don't tell me my beliefs are shit. It's fucking rude and I'm putting up with a lot of your crap today as it is.

You aren't "putting up" with anything. You're full of shit and I proved it. Now you're a grumpy gus because you hate being wrong. Suck it up. Get used to it.

There was no reason to believe that it had been disturbed.

More of your "beliefs". More shit. Facts, maam, facts.

Why did we not secure this facility with guards at the time of the invasion?

Are you fucking nuts? Just drop off a couple guys where ever we felt we needed to guard something? We were fighting a fucking war. You need to be able to GET to a place before you can GUARD it.

Irrelevant. It should have been secured prior.

Yeah, and on December 8th, 1941 we should have liberated the Nazi death camps. Holy Ignorance, Batman. You do understand the concept of war, don't you?

That is not a fact. NBC's news website quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

That IS fact. The people who WERE THERE, said they were gone. You weren't. Hanoi John wasn't. The Christian Science Monitor surely wasn't.

FACT: Upon securing the facility, the explosives were gone.

"Believe" what you want. Hanoi John expects it. It's how he gets you NeoComs to follow him mindlessly. I'll stick to the facts.

I don't have to suck up anything.

Your argument is a piece of shit and it's falling apart at the seams. Sorry that you're in denial about the real facts and you've been forced to make up your own. Don't take your inferiority rage out on me.

Falling apart? Real facts?

You don't HAVE any real facts. You keep talking about "real facts", then you give me your beliefs, which are shit. NeoCunt may roll over and accept something because Maria "believes" it, but the majority of us won't.

Until you come up with some stunning facts that aren't your "beliefs", then consider yourself schooled, bitchslapped, but never educated. You can't educate those who refuse to learn.

Class Dismissed.

The facts, maam, just the facts

On April 10th, the facility was taken? Irrelevant. It should have been secured prior.

Maria, quit being so hawkish. It's unbecoming of a barking moonbat such as yourself.

oh look, "shit" has decided to chime in (no doubt brought over from a crying geoff/gordon). Always nice to have a baby killer on board.

"If you can point me to one place where those people said, discounting the information they received from the Bush administration, that Saddam difinitively HAS WMDs."

The majority of the quotes were from 1998, retard. I have plenty more. Keep burying your head in the sand. I love trumping you!

Let's here 'em dilhole. You trumped your mama. Now try presenting a coherent argument. Try holding the current president accountable for his own actions for once rather than trying to blame it on past administrations and everyone else outside of those who are really responsible. But that would require you to unglue yourself from your psychosis that renders you incapable of recognizing a big steamy pile of shit when it's sitting on your doorstep. Incapable of recognizing failed leadership when it's the master leading you around by your pathetic brainwashed little neck.

Spin. Dodge. Deny. Shift.

Spin. Dodge. Deny. Shift.

Spin. Dodge. Deny. Shift.

I'm simply pointing out your ignoroance in regards to the exisitence of Saddam's WMD. Are you or are you not still denying their existence?

BTW- have you seen the breaking news on the ammo dump? Prepare to look the fool. Kerry looks like a fucking idiot too. I'm watching CNN, of all networks, and they're ripping him.

Ouch!

Look! Nunya, the weenie said something about crying!

rather be a weenie than a baby killing jar head.

here ya go, asswipes

http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

now, try and spin and discredit this story.

notice how they avoid the link or don't want to talk about it.

Just the facts, maam.

Just the facts. Keep your spin wrappers, *edited*.

"facts" from an obvious ultra rightwing partisan blog.

that would be like us citing moveon.org

come on geoff, you can do better.

HHAHAHAHA! NBC and Communist News Networks aren't ultra left wing?

Step away from the crack pipe, *edited*!

You've been bitchslapped.

Just the facts, maam, just the facts.

Class Dismissed, *edited*.

i think goeff projects his inner most fantasies *edited*. Maybe the local authorities need to keep an eye on you.

I just hate *edited*. Hence my loathing for you. *edited*

You haven't seen the "ire" of your ways.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html

i guess this is one of those left wing sources?

and your silly little divrsion won't work, dicklips.

right wing i mean

and of course this link http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

must be left wing?

someone fears the truth. i don't think he wants you to click on this link

http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

Speaking of fearing the truth, you can tell when Maria has her panties in a bunch from the repeated BitchSlappings. She starts her random editting.

Typical NeoComs. They whine and stamp their feet about censorship, but if it directly contradicts their statements and makes them look like asshats, they delete it.

Speaking of censorship, Powell really handed Stern his ass yesterday.

and you don't EVER edit posts, do you?

and you don't EVER try to change the subject, do you?

the subject being those pesky missing explosives
like this story elaborates more on
http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

I am not randomly editing. I am editing comments which refer to child molestation, pedophilia and beastiality. That crosses the boudaries of what I will tolerate on this blog as I've clearly stated in the past.

If you don't like it you can fuck right off.

Well, when the facts I present start getting deleted, I figure I'd be better suited to just pointing out your lies, felon.

You were owned.

You're my bitch.

Class Dismissed.

care to prove I am a felon, goeff? want to see a law suit slapped on your ass real quick?

why don't you want people to read this story about the truth with those missing explosives?

http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

Geoffrey, You need to calm yourself. You have clearly gone off the deep end once again.

If you can point out a single time when I have deleted a substantive argument, I would be truly amazed.

Now how bout stopping your crying bitching whining tantrum and find something productive to do with your time.

that is because he doesn't want you to read the truth of those missing explosives in this story:

http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

care to prove I am a felon, goeff? want to see a law suit slapped on your ass real quick?

I have an secret source that I can't disclose right now for personal reasons that knows you and confirms you are a felon. Please bring that lawsuit on.

What's that? Oh yeah, THE TRUTH

What's that on your cheek, Maria? Oh, a handprint. I love how you start frothing when you realize your "beliefs" are false.

You're my bitch.

Class Dismissed.

just what I thought - as usual, you cannot prove anything.

now how about that news story on the missing explosives?

http://www.wral.com/news/3859331/detail.html

Can't prove anything?

It's only video footage, right?

Truth hurts, huh felon?

Class Dismissed.

Geoffrey, you are one of the most pathetic human beings I have ever encountered, next to Gordon.

I am now closing this thread because you clearly have no concept of how to behave like a human being and you have way overstepped your boundaries, without having presented a single productive, interesting, insightful, useful, factual or substantive point. Shitsticks like you have no place here.