Joseph Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I would agree that there is no reason for impeding the progress of confirming President Bush' appointees. Even if you despite the man and/or disagree with choices he has made, he still deserves the respect of being President. Regardless of who was elected, that person has every right to decide who he wants in his cabinet, and if you are delaying a confirmation just because you don't like his choice or don't like him, it's immature and definitely not behavior expected out of a United States senator.
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I didn't call republicans racist nazis, I called Senator Byrd a Neo-Nazi Racist Radical Conservative. I don't really care what his party affliations are, I don't really particularly care for either party. I think he's a racist, and thats all folks.
ironmonk Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 21 2005, 01:51 AM'] Those in the democratic party have no integrity and base their statements on polls. Zell Miller is an exception to the rule. [/quote] A clarification... I want to make to this statement... I meant it as those running the party. There are some good people with good intentions in the party, but the leaders of the party and the majority of the party is what I am meaning by this statement. God Bless, ironmonk
Socrates Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jan 21 2005, 12:10 AM'] Umm...I'm not a leftist.... Do I really have too? I'm tired and already emotionally raw, I'd just as soon not fight with you. I like you. [/quote] That's OK. I know your not Leftist (at least in the normal sense of the word - your politics are kinda unique). However, comparing people they don't agree with to Nazis is a very old, very common practice of those on the Left. It is a means of avoiding rational argument. ("You're Nazi, you'er evil -therefore your not even worth listening to.") I could argue that National Socialism has more in common with the Left than the Right. I just think you can do better than that. If you think people are like Nazis, explain why. Otherwise avoid name-calling.
Good Friday Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk']A former Ku Klux Klansman who once vowed to keep the military segregated is single-handedly holding up the confirmation of Secretary of State-nominee Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman to be appointed to the office. "Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor," reports the New York Times. Sen. Byrd's maneuver came just hours after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved her nomination by a vote of 16 to 2.[/quote] You people need to get a grip. You're just assuming that because Sen. Byrd was a member of the KKK, and becaue Condoleezza Rice is black, he is opposing her confirmation for that reason -- all based on an article from a conservative website. It could be that Sen. Byrd is opposing Dr. Rice's confirmation for the same reasons that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Boxer, the two dissenting votes on the Foreign Relations Committee, did -- because of her role in selling the Iraq War to the American people based on lies. The Iraq War has been particularly devastating in both Ohio and West Virginia, which have lost people to the lie that the Bush Administration sold to Congress and the American public. If Dr. Rice were white, I suspect that Sen. Byrd would still be opposing her confirmation, and then you'd have to find a new reason for it -- instead of the real reason, which is that Dr. Rice is an unabashed liar who sold her soul and the truth for an unjust war. And while we're on the topic, shall we talk about the former members of the KKK in the Republican Party? Or how about the beloved late Senator who fathered a child with a black woman out of wedlock and then refused to acknowledge that child?
Gal. 5:22,23 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 21 2005, 10:20 AM'] Dr. Rice is an unabashed liar who sold her soul and the truth for an unjust war. [/quote] Source? Your avatar says "Love is the message." What a contrast to this statement.
Socrates Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='Gal. 5:22,23' date='Jan 21 2005, 02:18 PM'] Source? Your avatar says "Love is the message." What a contrast to this statement. [/quote] Gal., obviously you haven't spent much time on the phorums, lately!
ironmonk Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 21 2005, 12:20 PM'] which is that Dr. Rice is an unabashed liar who sold her soul and the truth for an unjust war. [/quote] I guess I was wrong about your writing ability. Also I thought you were smarter and being sincere, I guess not. You've finally proved me wrong... I stand corrected. Rise is not a liar. Your statement applies to every one of the crooked democrats that supported the war also. For someone to lie they have to know the truth and tell opposite the truth. Iraq had WMD's - according to the UN. Calling Rice a liar is foolish.
curtins Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 iron monk- man like just said- your my hero amen brotha and rock on!!!!
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 21 2005, 02:31 PM'] Rise is not a liar. Your statement applies to every one of the crooked democrats that supported the war also. For someone to lie they have to know the truth and tell opposite the truth. Iraq had WMD's - according to the UN. Calling Rice a liar is foolish. [/quote] While I think you're statement about the UN's stance on WMD's is incorrect, I do agree with you about Condi being a liar. There is no proof that she lied, or even that she would have been able to if she wanted to.
ironmonk Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 21 2005, 06:11 PM'] While I think you're statement about the UN's stance on WMD's is incorrect, I do agree with you about Condi being a liar. There is no proof that she lied, or even that she would have been able to if she wanted to. [/quote] I read the news report from the UN that stated that Iraq had WMD's before, during, and after the war. I've covered it on another thread here. [url="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html"]http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html[/url] [quote]Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.[/quote] The leftist media is bias to the point of deception. [url="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705"]http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705[/url] [quote]On June 9, Demetrius Perricos announced that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped as scrap metal to Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey, among others, at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. As an example of speed by which these facilities were dismantled, Perricos displayed two photographs of a ballistic missile site near Baghdad, one taken in May 2003 with an active facility, the other in February 2004 that showed it had simply disappeared.[/quote] [url="http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/650/documentid/2563/history/3,2359,650,2563"]http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...3,2359,650,2563[/url] [quote]On June 9th, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council about the export of Iraqi WMD, missile and nuclear components shipped out of Iraq before, during and after the invasion. As reported by MENL news service, UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the Council, "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," and said inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags. [/quote] [url="http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/32554/view?viewtype=best&skip=10"]http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/32554/v...pe=best&skip=10[/url] [quote]"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.[/quote] [b]The issue is not [i]if [/i]Saddam had WMD's... the issue is [i][u]where [/u][/i]are the WMD's.[/b] God Bless, ironmonk
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Don't you mean where are the WMD components? Components are different from actual WMD's. Just thought I'd point out that you're slightly skewing information. Also, the United States has conceded that there aren't any WMD's. I don't think you've got much of a platform here.
ironmonk Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 21 2005, 07:33 PM'] Don't you mean where are the WMD components? Components are different from actual WMD's. Just thought I'd point out that you're slightly skewing information. Also, the United States has conceded that there aren't any WMD's. I don't think you've got much of a platform here. [/quote] LOL Skew it all you like. The fact is Saddam had WMDs. He got them out of Iraq before, during, and after the war. The US stated that they didn't find any. Iraq is a large place with lots of places to hide them, and it was easy to ship parts out. Maybe you should read the articles I listed instead of just the little bits of them posted. There is a solid platform bro. God Bless, ironmonk
jezic Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 my question is why are idiots like that elected to the senate? Why do we let them run the country?
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 21 2005, 06:06 PM'] Skew it all you like. The fact is Saddam had WMDs. He got them out of Iraq before, during, and after the war. The US stated that they didn't find any. Iraq is a large place with lots of places to hide them, and it was easy to ship parts out. [/quote] It is not a fact that Saddam had (and shipped out) WMDs. It is an allegation. You cannot simply make accusations and call them facts. And secondly, if the USA seriously believed that there were WMDs in Iraq to this date (and honestly, I think they probably know a thing or two by now), do you believe that they would say 'Meh we're tired of looking!' Definately not. There were WMD components shipped out of Iraq prior to 2003, and that is where all evidence begins and ends. The USA has conceded that Iraq does not posess any WMDs, and I think it would be prudent for you to do the same.
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Jan 21 2005, 06:14 PM'] my question is why are idiots like that elected to the senate? Why do we let them run the country? [/quote] 1) Racists vote for racists 2) Democrats vote for anyone that calls themself a democrat
MC Just Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 (edited) i just got into a argument with my Father in law over politics and the church(he's democrat and very liberal) , he says "he'll listen to the church when the church is actually right" to him everything is the "conservative republicans" fault. The scandals and all..even though there is overwhelming evidence thats liberals caused the scandals. He goes on and on about how "bush is murdering our boys" I told him, our boys have been dying by the miillions in this country since roe-v wade. Also backed by the liberals. He started saying "all the bishops are liars and backed bush, those same bishops who protected the pedophile priests. I told him, no not all the bishops protected the pedophiles... He wouldnt even let me finish, im am so fired up right now i can break through a wall..lol I'm sick to my stomache when it comes to Liberalism. Edited January 22, 2005 by MC Just
MC Just Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 its like somehow their personal opinions are infallible and proven facts are wrong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now