If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
I thought you were just admonishing someone about being uncivil.....

Sorry...Frustration setting in...My apologies

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
You know, it's sad that you've apparently decided to sink to Eeyore1954's level....Until now, you've at least remained civil...

But of course you would not know ANYTHING about sinking to new lows, would you, wvrevy? Typical tactic: when you can't debate, obfuscate!

 

[Galahad]

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I assume you think this is the place where he said this, right. However, it doesn't say that at all. It says that we are to take action against terrorist organizations Including those that aided......etc...etc. It does not say "to take the necessary action against the Iraqi's that aided the terroists...etc....etc. It certainly cited 9/11 as a reason for the pursuit of terrorists, which they have always claimed Iraq was part of.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Sorry...Frustration setting in...My apologies

Don't let it get to you. At the end of the day we'll all be fine. No matter which one gets elected.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
But of course you would not know ANYTHING about sinking to new lows, would you, wvrevy? Typical tactic: when you can't debate, obfuscate!

Last time....You've yet to do anything but attack those that disagree with you, and you add nothing substantive to any conversation in which I've ever had the misfortune of reading your comments. You set the standard for scummy politics on this board, Steve...I couldn't live down to your level if I tried.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
I assume you think this is the place where he said this, right. However, it doesn't say that at all. It says that we are to take action against terrorist organizations Including those that aided......etc...etc. It does not say "to take the necessary action against the Iraqi's that aided the terroists...etc....etc. It certainly cited 9/11 as a reason for the pursuit of terrorists, which they have always claimed Iraq was part of.

It was a two point memo in support of military action against Iraq, and it uses the attackers of 9/11 as one of those points. I'm sorry, but that DOES imply that the two are linked, and I just don't see how any reasonable person could argue otherwise.

It says that this law (the authorization for action against Iraq) is in accordance with the war on the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11...It may be in legal-ese, but that's what it says. Trying to cut it that fine is, in my opinion, roughly 1000 times worse than contemplating the meaning of the word "is"...People DIED because of this decision.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Last time....You've yet to do anything but attack those that disagree with you, and you add nothing substantive to any conversation in which I've ever had the misfortune of reading your comments. You set the standard for scummy politics on this board, Steve...I couldn't live down to your level if I tried.

You have the temerity to accuse me of doing anything but attack those that disagree with me??? Your chutzpah never ceases to amaze me. Please do enlighten me as to what substance this post I quoted holds. I anxiously await.

As for setting the standard for scum, I learned from you, oh Master.

 

[Galahad]

Trying to cut it that fine is, in my opinion, roughly 1000 times worse than contemplating the meaning of the word "is"...

I'd agree that it would be worse if the line was fine. But it seems big and bright to me.

I don't recall.....are members of congress that voted for this now claiming to not have understood the language or claiming that the language meant a Saddam-9/11 link? If so, how could they all be fooled by such a stupid man?

 

[wvrevy]

(Edited to add: This is to Eeyore)

On another thread, you basically tore into someone who was lamenting not being able to afford the luxury hotels at WDW by essentially telling her to shut up and quit whining. You think this makes you a great guy ? Please...You're a jerk, and I think it's starting to become obvious to more and more people the more you post.

Tell you what...Let's just call a truce, you and I...From now on, I won't attack you, and you promise to do the same. Deal ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
I'd agree that it would be worse if the line was fine. But it seems big and bright to me.

I don't recall.....are members of congress that voted for this now claiming to not have understood the language or claiming that the language meant a Saddam-9/11 link? If so, how could they all be fooled by such a stupid man?

Now, wait....Is it that he didn't say it or is it that Congress shouldn't have been fooloed by it ? Which is it ?

The point is, this is one place where he makes the connection, and very clearly.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Now, wait....Is it that he didn't say it or is it that Congress shouldn't have been fooloed by it ? Which is it ?

The point is, this is one place where he makes the connection, and very clearly.

Oh, I don't think he said it. But if Democrats in congress are claiming that he did, then they should have been citing that claim all along. I can't believe that none of them brought it up then. The "Debate" about whether Iraq was involved in 9/11 started almost immediately.

 

[wvrevy]

So, you don't think that a letter outlining basic reasons for going into Iraq that includes the reasoning that it is in accordance with the war on those that attacked us on 9/11 is linking the two ?

Just trying to get that straight, since it doesn't seem to make any sense. This wasn't a letter saying "We're going to do this and this and this...and oh, by the way, we're at war with those that attacked us (but really, it doesn't have anything to do with this war...honest)".

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
(Edited to add: This is to Eeyore)

On another thread, you basically tore into someone who was lamenting not being able to afford the luxury hotels at WDW by essentially telling her to shut up and quit whining. You think this makes you a great guy ?

If you are going to summarize me, you might at least make the appearance of striving for accuracy. Please feel free to quote where I told her to "shut up and quit whining" in those words. I'm waiting...

Please...You're a jerk,

Hmm... is this a personal attack? From someone who doesn't practice personal attacks on this board? Should I expect an apology for this?

and I think it's starting to become obvious to more and more people the more you post.

Really? Please enlighten me as to whom you are referring. As I said on another thread, I speak my mind, period. If you don't like it, that's too bad. If you cannot deal with disagreement, maybe you shouldn't participate in forums like this. Not everyone is going to agree with you. And I don't cater my replies to suit individual personalities.

Tell you what...Let's just call a truce, you and I...From now on, I won't attack you, and you promise to do the same. Deal ?

I've never personally attacked you. If you'd care to retract your personal attack in this quoted post, then we may have something to discuss.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
(Edited to add: This is to Eeyore)

On another thread, you basically tore into someone who was lamenting not being able to afford the luxury hotels at WDW by essentially telling her to shut up and quit whining. You think this makes you a great guy ? Please...You're a jerk, and I think it's starting to become obvious to more and more people the more you post.

Tell you what...Let's just call a truce, you and I...From now on, I won't attack you, and you promise to do the same. Deal ?

I guess we've started the clock on getting the thread closed, huh?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Galahad
I assume you think this is the place where he said this, right. However, it doesn't say that at all. It says that we are to take action against terrorist organizations Including those that aided......etc...etc. It does not say "to take the necessary action against the Iraqi's that aided the terroists...etc....etc. It certainly cited 9/11 as a reason for the pursuit of terrorists, which they have always claimed Iraq was part of.

what is is about:

including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

That you don't understand. Even your boy Edwards appears to know what is meant here. It clearly says "aided". Now aid can come in many different forms, I guess. Like I asked someone else; if a set of people you know are crooks are living in your house, yet unbeknownst to you they plan a bank robbery and you later learn they did it, but you didn't plan it, and you let them hide out in your house afterwards, wouldn't any law enforcement agency hold you somewhat complicit?

 

[Galahad]

So, you don't think that a letter outlining basic reasons for going into Iraq that includes the reasoning that it is in accordance with the war on those that attacked us on 9/11 is linking the two ?

No I don't. Not it the way that is being implied. We never said, in that letter or others, that we are going to war with Iraq because we think Iraq participated in 9/11. That is the link that is being denied by the commission so that is the link that should be addressed in a discussion.

BTW, I thought it was the lack of WMDs that was the big evil in all of this.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
If you are going to summarize me, you might at least make the appearance of striving for accuracy. Please feel free to quote where I told her to "shut up and quit whining" in those words. I'm waiting...

See, that's the problem with you...I said you "essentially" told her that, but that IS the way it comes off....I'm not going to quote it word for word, as anybody that saw it knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Hmm... is this a personal attack? From someone who doesn't practice personal attacks on this board? Should I expect an apology for this?

Yes, it was personal...I'm tired of seeing your attacks on me on this board. And yes, I apologize...I sunk to that level and should not have.

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Really? Please enlighten me as to whom you are referring. As I said on another thread, I speak my mind, period. If you don't like it, that's too bad. If you cannot deal with disagreement, maybe you shouldn't participate in forums like this. Not everyone is going to agree with you. And I don't cater my replies to suit individual personalities.

That's fine...But Galahad (for example) and I have gone round and round on this thread, and not once has he made the kind of comments you make on a routine basis, and I have had no problem debating him on the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to delight in making smart aleck comments. Sure, that's your right. But it doesn't exactly make you Mr. Wonderful As for the "I speak my mind..." crap, it reminds me of people that always claim to be "frank"...and use it as an excuse to act like completed jerks (since the word I want to use would be blocked).

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I've never personally attacked you. If you'd care to retract your personal attack in this quoted post, then we may have something to discuss.

Oh, c'mon....That's not even worth a response.

Look...We can keep going at this and wasting board space, or we can just drop it and stick to debating the ISSUES when we're going to debate rather than attacking the other person. Deal ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
No I don't. Not it the way that is being implied. We never said, in that letter or others, that we are going to war with Iraq because we think Iraq participated in 9/11. That is the link that is being denied by the commission so that is the link that should be addressed in a discussion.

BTW, I thought it was the lack of WMDs that was the big evil in all of this.

1 - Yes, that is EXACTLY what this letter says. "We are going to war with Iraq in accordance with our decision to go after those that attacked us on 9/11". No matter how much spin you try to put on it, that IS what the letter says.

2 - WMD's are PART of the problem, but a long way from being the only issue. Besides, why do you keep trying to shift the issue ? First congress, now WMD's....You KNOW I'm right about this, don't ya' ? C'mon, you can admit it...it's ok

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Deal ?

Took this offline and sent you a PM.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Took this offline and sent you a PM.

Cool, but I didn't get it yet