ccs,

If you are going to ramrod a war at least plan for it. I was against the preemption argument from the beginning. Klutz and I got into an argument about this last year. We were attacked on 9-11 but Saddam had nothing to do with it. You know that and I know that. I really don't understand your argument. If we are going to invade another country for WMD's they better damn well have WMD's. Our actions should not make this world a greater danger, I believe W's actions have. I believe reasonable people should see through the lies of this administration. The man is not fit for the job.

Quote:To me not peeing on somebody to extinguish a fire seems to me quite hateful.

No, it just means I think more of my pee than I do of you. But I think more of dogs than I do of cats, but I don't hate cats.

Quote:To even imagine somebody on fire to me sounds quite deranged.

I'd be willing to lay money that the ways in which you view Bush in your imagination are probably akin to the movie Seven or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And what's even more disturbing is I'm sure those images make you laugh and give you comfort.

Quote:You should should seek some counseling if you continue with these images of your fellow man. 

Given the level of hatred you feel for Bush I think it's you who need counseling. In fact, if he wins, I'm going to tip the secret service off to you. I think that will send you over the edge and motivate you to pull a JW Booth.

Dogger Wrote:I'm sorry you feel that way. To me not peeing on somebody to extinguish a fire seems to me quite hateful. To even imagine somebody on fire to me sounds quite deranged. Call me crazy! Maybe too many bell ringers from Leonard Little left you that way. There's some evidence that serial killers who have no contempt for their vcitims sometimes have had head trauma in their frontal lobes. You should should seek some counseling if you continue with these images of your fellow man. wuhf scary indeed.

HUH?

GrayBeard Wrote:

HUH?

He's talking to me GB. He's trying to be clever, and it's not working. :laugh:

Dogger Wrote:I'm sorry you feel that way.  To me not peeing on somebody to extinguish a fire seems to me quite hateful.  To even imagine somebody on fire to me sounds quite deranged.

i say: enough of this nonsense. let's just all agree that we'll pee on dogger, whether he's on fire or not!

Quote:  Call me crazy!

okay. you're crazy.

Dogger Wrote:ccs,

If you are going to ramrod a war at least plan for it. I was against the preemption argument from the beginning. Klutz and I got into an argument about this last year. We were attacked on 9-11 but Saddam had nothing to do with it. You know that and I know that. I really don't understand your argument. If we are going to invade another country foe WMD's they better damn well have WMD's. Our actions should not make this world a greater danger, I believe W's actions have. I believe reasonable people should see through the lies of this administration. The man is not fit for the job.

Another useless rant that accomplishes nothing other than avoiding the questions you were asked. Dogger, you should eschew obfuscation.

You guys are like a pack of wolves. I don't hate W. I just see him as a man not fit for the job. He doesn't have press conferences because he's afraid he'll say the wrong things. It was great the other day at a rally he said something about our army not being all voluntary. The sheep started to cheer then they thought about what he just said. There was silence W fumbled through a couple of mumbles then shouted out all volunteer... all volunteer. Classic W.

now ccs......... once we inavded Iraq we SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS SITE AS A PRIORITY TO GAURD. WOW stay in the dark though guys.... stay in the dark. You guys should be singing pocket full of Krytonite for all "spin doctoring going on here!!!"

Let 'em keep talking, fellas. This story is a winner for the President under any set of circumstances.

Again, at worse:

Saddam Hussein had possession of tons of high grade explosive that were lethal in the hands of the wrong kind of people...like Saddam Hussein.
Terrorists, who just happened to be in Iraq around the time of the invasion AND KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THE EXPLOSIVES WERE AND WHAT THEY WERE FOR, got ahold of them.

Connecting the dots, it's easy to conclude that Saddam and Terrorists of some kind were in league AND had the explosive capability to conduct mass killings.

This parsing of what WMDs and explosives are is pure nonsense, another pathetic attempt by liberals to move the goalposts. If something can be used to blow up planes or detonate nukes, isn't it pretty much a WMD by extension?

Dogger and Schad are butt-plugging each other with the delusional fantasy that this story helps their candidate.

It doesn't. :roflol:

butt-plugging seeing images of people on fire and peeing on them. Attacking people in the most vile of ways. Just because they try to give you another side of an argument. Sorry you feel that way, bearcat. We shall see next Tuesday. The FBI Haliburton investigation, this monumental oversight on explosives, and John Kerry's strength will be the perfect storm for a new direction in our country.

Best of Luck though,

Dogger

Hate only breeds hate. Nothing good can come from it. The shroud of darkness has encompassed the kingdom and we need a brave knight to show us the light. Run from your hate before it's too late.

Dogger,

You told me earlier that my number of 400,000 tons of explosives that we had control of and destroyed in Iraq was wrong, but you didn't answer my question as to what # you have that contradicts mine.

I'm still waiting for your answer.

Dogger Wrote:butt-plugging seeing images of people on fire and peeing on them. Attacking people in the most vile of ways. Just because they try to give you another side of an argument. Sorry you feel that way, bearcat. We shall see next Tuesday. The FBI Haliburton investigation, this monumental oversight on explosives, and John Kerry's strength will be the perfect storm for a new direction in our country.

Best of Luck though,

Dogger

The more you post, the more you ramble. You are becoming more incoherent with each and every key stroke.

Well, look at what this article from the Associated Press has to say:

Quote: But at issue is whether the weapons were moved before or after U.S. forces occupied that region of the country in early April. No one has been able to provide conclusive evidence either way, although Iraqi officials blamed it on poor U.S. security after Baghdad fell.

The Pentagon has said it's looking into the matter, and officials note that 400,000 tons of recovered Iraqi munitions have either been destroyed or are slated to be destroyed.

[URL=
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us_iraq_weapons</a>]
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20041029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us_iraq_weapons</a>[/URL]

Keep repeating the lies, Dogger. Maybe you'll actually convince yourself they are true.

Dogger Wrote:Hate only breeds hate.  Nothing good can come from it.  The shroud of darkness has encompassed the kingdom and we need a brave knight to show us the light.  Run from your hate before it's too late.

A brave knight that's in the North Vietnam War Hall of Fame?
A brave knight that called Reagan's cold war policies "8 years of moral darkness?".
A brave knight that said US soldiers dying was only honorable if done so under the U.N. flag?

The libs' idea of "a brave knight" is about as powerful as watching WWE Divas in a bra and panties pillow fight.

"Kerry's strength"...an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

And you still haven't done the math, have you?

Trust me, buddy...I don't hate you. To hate you would infer I view you as some type of threat. Truth is, I pity you. You're the worst kind of pathetic...so insignificant and easily beaten it's barely worth my valuable time.

Hate is a very strong and significant emotion, and I wouldn't waste it on the likes of you.

400,000 tons of explosives. This was high grade stuff. You compared VMX to a lower grade explosive. I also like how now the 400,000 tons are supposedly slated to be destroyed. So to answer your question I thought the 400,000 tons of VMX was way off and it was. You got your RDX and VMX and regular ole explosives mixed up.

Are you guys at least at little mad at Guilliani for trying to blame the troops? Just wondering.

Dogger Wrote:400,000 tons of explosives. This was high grade stuff. You compared VMX to a lower grade explosive. I also like how now the 400,000 tons are supposedly slated to be destroyed. So to answer your question I thought the 400,000 tons of VMX was way off and it was. You got your RDX and VMX and regular ole explosives mixed up.

I never said VMX.

What I said was and I quote...

Quote:We have destroyed over 400,000 tons of explosives in Iraq so far.

So you do agree with me now on the 400,000 tons?

Dogger Wrote:Are you guys at least at little mad at Guilliani for trying to blame the troops? Just wondering.

Like I said before, I am not voting for Rudy. In fact, I doubt I would vote for him in a republican primary because I don't agree with him on many social issues.

GB-

As you can see and read we have slated to destroy over 400,000 tons. With the lying this crowd that could mean 10,000 destroyed and 390,000 slated to be destroyed.

Big press conference at the Pentagon right now...uh, oh, Dogger...

The explosives he removed were not under IAEA seal. He removed some explosives not the one's were talking about though. So story still stands.......... The tape show crates under the same seal as VMX labeled Al-Qaqaa. They didn't remove the VMX. What a cluster f___!