GeneralLee and doogie,
Agreed.
JeffR
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
Jerffy is clearly insane.
Why is he insane?
They are “quotes” from the oppositon making the same claim as the current administration, which this opposition now claims lied. Looks like they had the same view.
Uhmmm…are they the same claims? I don’t see any claims using definitive fact of WMD as a pretense to invade Iraq? See hedo, the lied part as we all know, were the definitive claims of wmd and al-queda ties—despite the intel, to justify invading. Let’s not even mention the whole “No nation building” either…
If they looked at the same evidence, which they did, then are you saying the Dems lied also. Or are you just ignoring the obvious to make a political statement.
I don’t think either lied. They all looked at the same intel and made the same recommendation. I know that would blow your bias wiring apart but try and think objectively if just for a moment.
[/quote]
Wait a minute…You seriously can’t see the differance or are you pretending? Believing something is one thing…But claiming for a fact, there is no doubt, we know where they are—while getting disclaimers from intel on such “facts” and using it as justification to invade
is just a little different don’t ya think?
And where do you see the same recommendations? Even Jeff’s quotes show the different recommendations.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,
It’s unfortunate (but not surprising) that you didn’t read the entire article.
Go back. Read it all.
You claim that the dems didn’t “assert” that there were “definetly WMD.”
I posted plenty showing that they did indeed assert, and in some cases aggressively assert, JUST EXACTLY THAT.
Read it.
The difference, of course, is the will to do something about it. Not talk, action.
It’s sad that these same clowns who were sure there were stockpiles, are now jumping ship. Worse, they are pointing fingers and raising hell.
Don’t believe for one second that these self-same dinks aren’t being encouraged by the enemy.
Hypocrites and worse…
JeffR[/quote]
Well I read it and reread it, and looking at Clinton admin statements—I see nothing close to the rhetoric of the Bush admin, there are no false specifics of Bio-labs, no nuclear cloud, no unmanned drone flying (ha!) 6000 miles to strike us here, and of course no pretext to invading. There is a general justification for no-fly zones and weapons inspector (you know a more common sense approach). You of course know that most of these statement were in the context of getting weapons inspectors in there.
As for the 2002 statements…You’re blaming Dems for trusting Bush’s intel? Was congress being presented the intel disclaimers (example:intel to bush—“DON’T SAY THIS!”) Don’t you thing it’s odd that Dems would like to investigate whether the Office of Special Plans was cherry-picking the intel presented to Bush, but rebulicans won’t let them? You’ll remember Sen. Roberts promised to have the commission on the Intel—but for some reason that hasn’t happened…Why Jeff? And wouldn’t you want to know? Also what do the Brits mean by Bush fixing intel around policy pre-invasion?
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
Jerffy is clearly insane.
Why is he insane?
They are “quotes” from the oppositon making the same claim as the current administration, which this opposition now claims lied. Looks like they had the same view.
Uhmmm…are they the same claims? I don’t see any claims using definitive fact of WMD as a pretense to invade Iraq? See hedo, the lied part as we all know, were the definitive claims of wmd and al-queda ties—despite the intel, to justify invading. Let’s not even mention the whole “No nation building” either…
If they looked at the same evidence, which they did, then are you saying the Dems lied also. Or are you just ignoring the obvious to make a political statement.
I don’t think either lied. They all looked at the same intel and made the same recommendation. I know that would blow your bias wiring apart but try and think objectively if just for a moment.
Wait a minute…You seriously can’t see the differance or are you pretending? Believing something is one thing…But claiming for a fact, there is no doubt, we know where they are—while getting disclaimers from intel on such “facts” and using it as justification to invade
is just a little different don’t ya think?
And where do you see the same recommendations? Even Jeff’s quotes show the different recommendations.[/quote]
Some people hate the truth and would rather live in a box. I don’t think this war is just, I already served my military obligation. Therefore I won’t be voluntering to go to Iraq.
If the enemy was on our shores I would fight, If someone fucks with me or my family, I will fight! But, since neither of these two are happening and I again don’t believe in the validity or justification of this war started by politicians who neglected their own duty, I again won’t be going to Iraq.
On the other hand and I will try to find the link today and post it. I read an article where the Pentagon is doing a study on what economic class is the best to target for military recruitment. They hired a private firm to do this because they can’t legally do it themselves.
They are most definitely running out of volunteers and most definitely need bodies to go to Iraq! Don’t you think some of the guys on this board who say liberals are liars and make shit up and are a slew of other adjectives have the opportunity to show their truth, honor, and conviction, to their cause with action?
Are does the scenario change when they are asked to replace rhetoric with action. How many of you twenty or thirty something guys with girlfriends, new wives, or kids, would pick up today and go to Iraq if George Bush said he needed you? And, be honest!
100
You and I could be standing next together looking at the same blue sky and and if Bush said it was blue you’d say he was lying.
Your bias blinds you. I think it’s funny and discussion with you again has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Go form a committe to come up up with a recommendation on what to do about terrorism. Lots of soon to be unemployed Democratic congressmen will be looking for work next year.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The drivel JeffR posts is mostly plagarized talking points from the radical right think tanks or from the hate radio crowd.
Hate radio? And just who might that be? And copuld you prove this ‘hate’ label you just threw out there without any fucking proof?[/quote]
Hate radio is Air America morons and all the right wingnut morons.
We can agree to disagree.
The fact of the matter is containment worked because there is not WMD.
The previous administrations policy was one of containment.
At the end of the day the current administration took us to war using resolution 1441 as their reason.
It is not acceptable to be wrong about war period.
I don’t care which POS party is pulling the reigns.
I believe we have the best country in the world but our politicians are dirt bags.
[quote]Todd S. wrote:
That is great. I can’t believe you spent so much time putting that all together for this forum… Pretty sweet though… It is the same thing all the radio and tv stations have been saying… [/quote]
He did not put that togther.
That was plagarized from snopes.com website.
Copy and paste. It took all of 90 seconds.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
vroom wrote:
Jerffy is clearly insane.
Classic liberal tactic. Ignore the evidence. Ignore the truth. Attack the person who presented both.
Yeah, fucking right, were the ones ignoring the evidence and the truth. I’d fucking laugh if that wasn’t so sick!
Lotta fuckin’ going on 'round here. Should we move this thread to the “Sex and the Male Animal” forum? 
[/quote]
The F-bombs are completely out of line.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
marmadogg wrote:
“No worries. This is a non issue”
You also like to say “irrelevant.”
I think you need to look up the meanings of “irrelevant” and “non-issue.”
I do not think they mean what you think.
In all honesty, I have to thank you for amusing me. It’s been fun!!!
JeffR[/quote]
Whether or not Bush lied would only be relevant if the MSM and congress planned on exposing the ‘lies’.
That will not happen so whether or not Bush ‘lied’ is irrelevant.
The facts show a mistake was made but proving someone lied without some kind of admission is impossible.
Humans are good at denial.
Saddam is a perfect example.
lumpy wrote:
"Well I read it and reread it, and looking at Clinton admin statements—I see nothing close to the rhetoric of the Bush admin, there are no false specifics of Bio-labs, no nuclear cloud, no unmanned drone flying (ha!) 6000 miles to strike us here, and of course no pretext to invading. There is a general justification for no-fly zones and weapons inspector (you know a more common sense approach). You of course know that most of these statement were in the context of getting weapons inspectors in there.
As for the 2002 statements…You’re blaming Dems for trusting Bush’s intel? Was congress being presented the intel disclaimers (example:intel to bush—“DON’T SAY THIS!”) Don’t you thing it’s odd that Dems would like to investigate whether the Office of Special Plans was cherry-picking the intel presented to Bush, but rebulicans won’t let them? You’ll remember Sen. Roberts promised to have the commission on the Intel—but for some reason that hasn’t happened…Why Jeff? And wouldn’t you want to know? Also what do the Brits mean by Bush fixing intel around policy pre-invasion?"
lumpy, if you read it (and reread it) then still posted the above, you’ve got serious comprehension problems.
First of all, there is CERTAINTY in the statements from your party. Not if, not maybe, but “we know.”
Second, that memo from the British is horseshit and you (should) know it. Not going to rehash the other thread for you.
However, I’m going to post some of the most incriminating statements (nearly all are when your party had 100% access to the latest intel.)
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[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.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“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. 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
That’s it, lumpy. I’m not going to spoon-feed you on this again.
JeffR
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The drivel JeffR posts is mostly plagarized talking points from the radical right think tanks or from the hate radio crowd.
Hate radio? And just who might that be? And copuld you prove this ‘hate’ label you just threw out there without any fucking proof?
Hate radio… Hate radio… who the fuck said hate radio. Show me one gull damn bit a hate fucking radio damnit! Fucking morons!!!
[/quote]
Elk,
Take it easy man, no need getting yourself all worked up. It’s just a harmless debate.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Jerffy is clearly insane.[/quote]
vroom:
Why do you say things like this?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The drivel JeffR posts is mostly plagarized talking points from the radical right think tanks or from the hate radio crowd.
Hate radio? And just who might that be? And copuld you prove this ‘hate’ label you just threw out there without any fucking proof?
Hate radio… Hate radio… who the fuck said hate radio. Show me one gull damn bit a hate fucking radio damnit! Fucking morons!!!
Elk,
Take it easy man, no need getting yourself all worked up. It’s just a harmless debate.
[/quote]
If you are serious with that comment, I will tell you this it was made dripping with sarcasm and I thought that was pretty obvious.
I won’t answer for Vroom, but you ask him why he would make that comment.
Well, why wouldn’t you question his sanity.
I have seen you many times tell people your famous “You come to the best muscle building website on the planet, and wast your such and such post with this” comment.
jerffy has never posted one substantial word much less sentence outside of a political forum and most of the time with the class of an ass clown and you don’t question his stability? He’s never offered a word of encouragement or help to another lifter. After all the common bond here is training right? Oh, that’s right he worships the war like you do, how could I forget!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
If you are serious with that comment, I will tell you this it was made dripping with sarcasm and I thought that was pretty obvious.
I won’t answer for Vroom, but you ask him why he would make that comment.
Well, why wouldn’t you question his sanity.
I have seen you many times tell people your famous “You come to the best muscle building website on the planet, and wast your such and such post with this” comment.
jerffy has never posted one substantial word much less sentence outside of a political forum and most of the time with the class of an ass clown and you don’t question his stability? He’s never offered a word of encouragement or help to another lifter. After all the common bond here is training right? Oh, that’s right he worships the war like you do, how could I forget![/quote]
It does not bother me whether or not JeffR has posted outside of the political forum.
I do take issue with JeffR’s inability to discuss a topic without plagerizing or reciting someone elses talking point.
JeffR is too abusive to be taken seriously. If you disagree with him or violate Uncle Ronies 11th commandment then JeffR labels you.
JeffR is beyond ridiculous.
I am sure JeffR’s is a sane individual but a very angry misguided individual.
e-hater,
I’ve repeatedly told you that I could post outside this forum. I offered to post my philosophy and have even given my regimen in some detail.
I just don’t think my workouts are “sexy” enough to warrant much discussion. Lots of heavy compound movements with no gear (internal/external) with maxiumum effort.
Again, if it would make you happy, I’d be happy to go and post this somewhere. It does seem out of place in discussions about how much Pump Tech to “cycle” doesn’t it?
marma-love,
Thanks for your continuing attention.
As usual, I must correct some of your misconceptions.
I am not angry at all!!! I am having a ball!!!
I am amused at most things. As a matter of fact, you amuse me greatly, my “paleo-genius” pal.
Rarely do you see me angry. The prominent exceptions being e-hater making disparaging comments about the Force and the activist judges destroying property rights. That’s about all.
I am saddened by the democrats’ lack of staying power and, apparently, conviction. That is much different than being angry.
I’d be angry if the Republicans lost their will.
Wait a minute, one other thing makes me mad: the little bastards who appear to have killed that Alabama teen in Aruba.
They need some serious correction.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’d be angry if the Republicans lost their will.
JeffR[/quote]
Huh?
Whatever happened to the contract with america that Newt and Luntz wrote?
I have to admit I bought that hook, line and sinker.
What happened to Delay taking a stand against corruption in the house?
What a joke. He re-wrote the book on corruption.
I wish what we have been seeing since 2000 was as simple as ‘Repulicans lost thier will’.
It ain’t even that good.
Like I have been saying…I hope the Democrats do not take over the house in 2006. I do not need to explain that.
Zeb,
In Jerffy’s case, it appears to be true. He’s got this Internet tough guy thing going, where he’s a big bad cop. Oooh, what a man. Mentally, he acts like a child. Either he actually is one, or he’s not right in the head.
Anyway, posting a bunch of quotes like was done doesn’t really prove very much. I know approximately half of you won’t be able to even fathom the concept of this statement, but that’s fine.
Rah rah rah!!!
I love Jerffy!!!
Jerffy loves me!!!
We’re a happy family!!!
Four more Jerffy!!!
Give me a fucking break already. The looney has left the asylum and you folks want to rally around him because he speaks to your cause? God help you, because with that level of desperation you are going to need it.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
…
Whatever happened to the contract with america that Newt and Luntz wrote?
I have to admit I bought that hook, line and sinker.
What happened to Delay taking a stand against corruption in the house?
What a joke. He re-wrote the book on corruption.
…[/quote]
The Republicans actually did achieve a significant number of goals they utlined in the Contract with America.
Now that they are in power the do not show a lot of interest in actually shrinking government intrusion in our lives. Gee I wonder why.
JeffR, you might apologize…it appears you’ve drooled all over the political forums again.
Elk,
Perhaps ZEB is the father JeffR appeals to in your scenario…?
(ZEB, even I thought you were smarter than to stand along side JeffR!)