Topic: Anything you'd like it to be, since you are a mindless, gobshsite, liberal, pseudo intellectual, it shoudln't be too hard to totally humilate your dismal ass. In fact, I'd consider it a pleasure.
Rules: No innuendo. All facts not in mutually agreed upon must be referenced. Links, my boy, links. No links, you slink.
Outcome: You will suffer RHayes' fate.
Interlopers: Not welcome. Not even ACA. I can hanlde this clown myself. Those of you who doubt this, please refer to the dispatch of rhayes.
Last condition: You lose, you grant me permissions to modify that tripe ridden website of yours so that it conatins at least an ounce of truth. There is no point in discussing a victory by you, since that is not among the possible outcomes.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NL207 your on!!!!
June 3, 2007 - 16:37 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewMy rules:
Stick to facts only… NO Faux News BS renamed as facts. All rebuttals must have at least 2 sources mutually recognized as factual not Total Spin created by the Right Wing Spin Masters.
Now for the subject:
My choice of subject matter is:
Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks on the United States.
My position is that Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11.
Warning: Your drivel of nothing different, devoid of logic and reason will not be accepted as fact… Remember… Facts Only!
Upon My Victory you will resign your position on this board for a period of 1 year…
No need for you to reply to this challenge because you have already lost! bye bye!
be careful,American Rhet! If
June 3, 2007 - 16:55 ET bybe careful,American Rhet! If you get more agressive than Colmes , you might get banned as I was with no comment moderation or even the ability to search this "fairness and unbiased" site. Make sure to never get down to their level. Insist on them answering their own questions before you answer any.
Notice how they are still proud of banning liberals. Its like getting kicked out of Rush Limblob's birthday party. Too funny!
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
Well, Montana troll- The Huff
June 3, 2007 - 17:06 ET by Dad GummitWell, Montana troll- The Huffpo trash will welcome you! Go wallow there, where a person gets voted of the island for even asking reasonable questions.
You Know you’re a Democrat if:
You’ve ever been given a carton of cigarettes and a ride to the polls by the same people who completed your registration form
You think wrestling is real
You can’t get over the 2000 election (not to mention 2004)
You still honestly believe OJ is innocent
You or any of your close friends have ever been a guest on The Jerry Springer Show
You think a 401K is a really long race
You have ever begun a sentence with “My baby’s daddy…”
You think your rights have been trampled if the government closes your housing project & moves you to another one
You have ever bought prime rib with food stamps
You have ever traded food stamps for cash, tobacco, drugs, or booze
You have been arrested more than twice
You have never even looked for a job
You think Martin Sheen is presidential material because he played one on TV
You preach to adoring followers that they should give up cars, SUV’s, and air conditioning, while traveling around in private jets, limos, and live in HUGE mansions
|
You think Saddam was a victim, and there never were any WMD at all.
You base your political opinions on what you see on MTV
Your car radio is worth more than your car
Your car radio is so loud that I can’t hear mine
You think Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin are really smart people
You admire Paris Hilton
You have ever hugged a tree and asked for its opinion
You’ve spent more time in a tattoo parlor than in a dentist’s office
You’ve ever voted more than once in any election
You are a wealthy retiree, yet you steal sugar packets from restaurants
You think all guns should be banned, but you will keep your’s “just in case.”
You NEVER question the spin from MSM
"If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are mis-informed."-Mark Twain
Dad, I appreciate your intere
June 3, 2007 - 17:17 ET by NL207Dad, I appreciate your interest as well. But get the H*** out of may way. there is a peanut gallery thread to track this. Use that.
There is a peanut gallery thr
June 3, 2007 - 17:19 ET by NL207There is a peanut gallery thread shadowing this thread. Please use it for your observations. I am sure you will find all the opposition there you would like.
Thanks M.L.I suppose that wou
June 4, 2007 - 06:51 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewThanks M.L.
I suppose that would be their version of fairness. I've been kicked out of better places I assure you! This sandbox is full of scum bags only good for recreational purposes. When I get done they will have lost the battle and cried wolf until someone does something to attempt keeping the sandbox full of like mindlessness. In the mean time maybe someone on the fence will learn what a waste of humanity their ilks are and get themselves right with the world. It only takes one to make it worth while.
My position is that Saddam
June 3, 2007 - 17:06 ET by Dave RMy position is that Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11.
No, its you who have already lost, you turban-wearing saddamite.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
I appreciate your interest, D
June 3, 2007 - 17:16 ET by NL207I appreciate your interest, Dave, but get the H*** out of the way. I can handle this irrational twit with one lobe tied behind my back.
You know, this guy has a poin
June 3, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Clear thinkerYou know, this guy has a point.
Everyone knows that it was Clinton who was responsible for 9-11.
;-)
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Same to you as the others, th
June 3, 2007 - 17:22 ET by NL207Same to you as the others, thinker. The peanut gallery is the place for this. In no way do I want to stifle your expression, but I'd like to keep this arena clear for what will be some messy business. This clown has all the mental faculties of rhayes with the diposition of hater.
No problem.I would wish you l
June 3, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Clear thinkerNo problem.
I would wish you luck, but you won't need it.
Off for some peanuts.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
You are in no position to mak
June 3, 2007 - 17:14 ET by NL207You are in no position to make any rules here.
You failed to provide more than one source which was not Fox News, therefore your argument is rejected on the basis of your own rules of engagement. In fact, you failed to provide ANY sources....
Lost? You've "conveniently" selected an argumetation point that I am on record as having endorsed on this board long before you ever showed up here. How long did it take you to search the history here to discover that I do not believe Hussein had any direct role in 9-11?
Even more broadly, no conservative or libertarian here on this board that I am aware of thinks that Saddam Hussein was a formative influence in orchestrating the 9-11 attack. If there is such a person, let them chime in on the peanut gallery thread.
This may come as an even greater shock to you, but I have never seen nor heard the Bush administration claim that Saddam Hussein had anything formative to do with the 9-11 attacks. This is a direct contradiction to your argumentation on another thread. I reject the claim that Bush has ever officially claimed Saddam was behind 9-11. If he had, that would have been plastered all over the alphabet networks. As long ago as Sept 17, 2003, Bush had been explicitly clear about this. At no time has there been any more than suspicion of Iraqi involvement.
"Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks"
Last, any Hussein-Iraq role in these attacks was never given as casus belli for war against Iraq. The casus belli are detailed in the authorization to use force against Iraq. Nowhere in this resolution is there a claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.
You lose.
How the hell do you get to
June 5, 2007 - 23:13 ET by RESTLESS 1How the hell do you get to the "peanut gallery thread"?
Never mind, found the peanu
June 5, 2007 - 23:30 ET by RESTLESS 1Never mind, found the peanut gallery.
ARR...You are a waste of spac
June 3, 2007 - 17:23 ET by bigtimerARR...
You are a waste of space here as far as I am concerned.
Bite me.
NL...please accept my apologies and my mistake....I am in the middle of cooking and thought I was responding to ARR on one of his ridiculous forum threads....just wanted you to know.
:)
June 3, 2007 - 17:29 ET by NL207:)
My feelings are hurt.
June 3, 2007 - 17:51 ET by acaiguanaMy feelings are hurt.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Welcome back!You can have him
June 3, 2007 - 19:39 ET by NL207Welcome back!
You can have him when I'm finished.
busted!!!!
June 3, 2007 - 19:41 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewFirst off, if I’m going to attempt to educate a bunch of lug heads I’ll set the forum anyway I like. Your arrogant ass behavior mirrors your cowboy leader but not all of America buys your crap!
You don’t set the rules for my involvement.
2nd you stated that I pick the subject and you would debate it. I wasn’t debating it I was stating the subject – no links necessary (links were required on rebuttal) … I did so you failed to debate the opposing position.
Definition of debate: formal, oral confrontation between two individuals, teams, or groups who present arguments to support opposing sides of a question, generally according to a set form or procedure.
You failed to debate.
You have lost this debate and are now destined for the Woodshed!
For your assertion that no one from the Bush administration claimed ties between Saddam and 9-11. Here are your ties from the Bush administration/GOP. These are easily found within 5 minutes so search for yourself and you can find all you like. You will have plenty of time now that you have lost the debate and are banished from this board!
This discussion is over!!! I won, you lose! Bye bye!
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/280906_saddam_911_wmd.html
John Boehner Still Believes Saddam Was Tied To 9/11 And Had WMD
On Hardball this afternoon, House Majority Leader John Boehner was asked questions about Iraq. Boehner insisted that Saddam had WMD and that we just "haven’t found them yet". Boehner also states that Saddam was supporting the terrorists for 9/11 and was "providing cover" for the training camps in Iraq.
After Bush Dismisses National Intelligence Estimate, Boehner Alleges Saddam-al Qaeda-9/11 Link: Despite No Evidence to Support his Claim or Any Expert to Agree With Him, Boehner Puts Saddam and al Qaeda in Cahoots Before 9/11…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL
9/11, Iraq: Cheney again claims tie
Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003.
In remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cheney contended that U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain.
"As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts," Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.
"Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. war against terrorism.
The U.S. invasion, occupation and counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq over the past four years has claimed the lives of at least 3,193 U.S. soldiers, wounded 23,785 other GIs and cost taxpayers more than $400 billion.
Cheney spoke as part of the Bush administration's public relations offensive to win congressional support for the president's decision to send at least 26,100 additional U.S. combat and support troops to Iraq to try to stem bloodshed in Baghdad and Anbar province.
The administration also seeks congressional approval of an additional $100 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cheney has long contended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago this month was justified in part because of suspected ties between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
But a 148-page report released by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in September showed that U.S. intelligence agencies disagreed with Bush administration claims of links between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Cheney's hard-hitting remarks represented a symbolic rejoinder to some critics' contention -- and some Democrats' hopes -- that the vice president might be sidelined by the federal felony conviction of Libby last week.
Libby, facing sentencing June 5, ran afoul of a special prosecutor's investigation into an effort by Cheney to smear a prominent anti-Iraq war critic who raised questions about Bush's effort to justify the Iraq invasion with claims that Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons materials in Africa.
Cheney spoke six days after Libby, his former chief of staff and national security adviser, was convicted for obstruction and false statements.
"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them," Cheney declared. "When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."
The subject was your baseless
June 3, 2007 - 21:37 ET by NL207The subject was your baseless assertion that George Bush officialy blamed Saddam Hussein for helping to carry out the 9-11 attack and claimed this as a casus belli for war with Iraq. What John Boehner thinks or believes about any roll Saddam has played in this act is irrelevant. He is not George Bush. Nor is his view contained in the casus belli of the Congress' joint Iraq War resolution [HR 114 linked earlier] indicating it isn't shared by a majority of Congress either. Your claim that Bush has falsely asserted Saddam's complicity in staging 9-11 as a provocation for war is simply and completely false.
The article about Cheney's comments is dated Mrach 13, 2007. The quotations in it are clearly ["(03-13) 04:00 PDT Washington" dateline] from a Cheney address to American-Israel Public Affairs Committee of that same day. Cheney is clearly speaking about the facts as we know them as of 3/13/2007.
Your reference is interesting in that it dredges up this remark representing the politically accepted state of Iraq's Al Qaeda arrangements of 4 years earlier:
"Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003."
as a preface to Cheney's remarks of March 13, 2007, a clear attempt to undermine the credibilty of the VP with outdated data. Cheney actually said this:
"U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain"
Representing it to be the state of affairs as of March 13, 2007.
Examining the truthfulness of the VP's remarks.
The late Abu Al Masri, formerly leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq said on 11/12/2006 that Al Qaeda had 12,000 fighters in Iraq. Since Abu Al Masri was reported killed in Anbar province 5/12/2007, it is clear Al Qaeda has fighters in Anbar province as the VP said on March 13 2007.
Certainly at least one bomb attack was thwarted in Baghdad. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if this is the event to which Cheney refers.
Osama bin Laden wants to impose an Islamic Caliphate over all Muslim lands. Osama says the capital of the Caliphate is Baghdad.
The Vice President appears to be telling the truth. Moreover, Cheney said nothing in his remarks quoted by SFGate on 3/13/07 about Saddam contributing to the 9-11 plot.
The remainder of your post us unsubstantiated by reference and is therefore not relevant.
Your claim that Cheney attributes any responsibility for organizing the 9-11 attack to Saddam is not substantiated.
The case for war agianst Iraq:
"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;"
Iraq, since the 1st Gulf War ceasefire, has continued to be a haven for terrorists who have killed Americans and Saddam had continued to supply blood money to Hamas, an international terrorist group. Therefore Saddam was violating the conditions of ceasefire outlined in this clause of the joint resolution.
Therefore, there was casus belli against Saddam.
To educate someone else you must first possess some knowledge.
NL207 you obviously don't know what "debate" means
June 3, 2007 - 23:15 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewYou still have not addressed the topic I laid out as the subject of this debate or the position you are suppose to debate. To quote your arrogant ass:
“Topic: Anything you'd like it to be, since you are a mindless, gobshsite, liberal, pseudo intellectual, it shoudln't be too hard to totally humilate your dismal ass. In fact, I'd consider it a pleasure.”
Let me assure you the pleasure is all mine!
I said nothing about Bush in the subject to be debated nor did I say anything about Iraq. You brought those issues up not me. Once again, my position – Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11.
Your rebuttal or - Your post is unsubstantiated by reference and is therefore not relevant.
This is not my first rodeo with you lug head/Dream Weavers. I recognize your attempts to stonewall through coercion only accessible in your little circle jerk of like minded trolls here. You all will manage to convince yourselves as always that you have somehow achieved some great victory (mission accomplished) when in fact you lost again just like your performance in Iraq!
I never disagreed with the p
June 4, 2007 - 22:24 ET by NL207I never disagreed with the premise that Saddam had no as yet proven putative roll in planning or execution of 9-11. I held this position long before you ever appeared on this board. On this point there is no joy.
And now, after I handed you your dismal ass back by refuting much of your screed posted above, you want to confine the debate to Saddam's putative roll in 9-11? This will not fly, counselor, as any lawyer will tell you, YOU opened the other lines of questioning, thereby permitting opposing counsel to cross examine along those lines. You don't get to retract your mistakes after you've made them. I will continue to refute you on the subjects you've opened on this thread.
Let's continue with Vice President Cheney's remarks, which you so generously quoted earlier.
"Iraq's relevance in the war on terror could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said Al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. War Against terrorism."
The VP argues that whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the struggle against Al Qaeda is now focused in Iraq. This issue of Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq before 2003 or Saddam/Iraqi involvement in 9-11 is now moot. Your interpretation of the VP's remarks have Cheney tying 9-11 to Iraq, "9-11, Iraq: Cheney again claims tie" This is clearly wrong. Cheney has stated that Al Qaeda has tied itself to Iraq. Al Qaeda's intentions are easily proven. Al Qaeda has shifted fighters from its other fronts, in particular Afghanistan, to Iraq. Al Qaeda's pre-war deployable strength was estimated at about 20,000 fighters, most of whom were actually part of the International Islamic Front for Jihad. In 2006, Adu Al Masri boasted that Al Qaeda had 12,000 fighters in Iraq, 60% of its pre-war strength. Clearly, Al Qaeda has invested the greater part of its international strength as well as its prestige in Iraq. If the US aim is to break Al Qaeda in this war, then Iraq is the place they must be broken, and Cheney is correct.
Since you have ignored the first whereas Casus Belli from the Joint Resolution to use Military Force against Iraq, we will take that as an affirmation that it has basis in fact without further discussion.
"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated"
This clause, taken out of context here, is discussing the state of affairs in Iraq from 1991-2002 up until the time of the authorization in 2002. From David Kay's testimony about weapons inspections both in that time frame and after the invasion, before Congress referenced above:
"New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN "
"they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit"
In fact, Kay confirms every item in this clause except that regarding nuclear weapons.
About them, Kay says this:
"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point."
the second Casus Belli has merit.
It's a tragedy that you have the emotional maturity of a 2 year old. This might be more difficult otherwise.
The only thing that was easy
June 5, 2007 - 10:00 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewThe only thing that was easy about this was kicking your sorry ass to the curb!
Again to quote your arrogant ass: “Topic: Anything you'd like it to be, since you are a mindless, gobshsite, liberal, pseudo intellectual, it shoudln't be too hard to totally humilate your dismal ass. In fact, I'd consider it a pleasure.”
My response was: “My rules:
Stick to facts only… NO Faux News BS renamed as facts. All rebuttals must have at least 2 sources mutually recognized as factual not Total Spin created by the Right Wing Spin Masters.
Now for the subject:
My choice of subject matter is:
Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks on the United States.
My position is that Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11.
Warning: Your drivel of nothing different, devoid of logic and reason will not be accepted as fact… Remember… Facts Only!
Upon My Victory you will resign your position on this board for a period of 1 year…
No need for you to reply to this challenge because you have already lost! bye bye!”
As predicted in my response to you, you FAILED!!!!!
Now to try and teach you a little something….. It was your “ARROGANCE” that lost it for you asshole! Just like your fearless leader. Neither of you got a clue about real world and think you can go off and play vigilante. Well maybe this experience will bring some sense of your meaningless existence. You contributed nothing but BS to this thread and its obvious to those who can read and comprehend….. Now here’s your ass back…. Go back under the rock you crawled out from! Oh an yes It Has Been a Pleasure!
Amusing, juevenile, and typic
June 5, 2007 - 22:42 ET by NL207Amusing, juevenile, and typical of the liberal mentality: "We are beyond reproach so we needn't defend any of our pronouncements."
You already opened the field of debate wide with your screeds earlier. It is too late to try to confine the subject matter. You might have succeeded if you had the emotional maturity to carry out your strategy.
Again referring to your reference "proving" that VP Cheney has linked 9-11 to Iraq which claims without proofs:
"Cheney has long contended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago this month was justified in part because of suspected ties between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
The author, Stewart M. Powell, does not support this claim anywhere in his article with a quotation from Cheney. If it were true, it shold be easy for him or anyone else to search such a quotation by Cheney justifying the war on the basis of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties on any of the major news services. It is not, as this search reveals, which produces only the original SF Chronicle piece in its first 100 hits, the rest being an assortment of blogs and non-authoritative sources. Shortening the search to this produces one new hit, WaPo, but in it Cheney says Iraq "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.", which has already been demonstrated to be true by a previous reference on this thread.
This implies the allegation in your reference is unlikely to be true and is rejected without supporting proofs that Cheney actually made such an assertion as claimed by Powell.
The third Casus Belli clause of H.R. 114:
"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;"
David Kay and Hans Blix agree this is true.
Jumping ahead in the Joint Resolution:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"
Zarqawi, a man who had been trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and fought there on behalf of the Taliban was in Iraq latest by August 7, 2002 and the Iraqis knew he was there. This casus belli is also true.
"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"
This has been noted earlier. This casus belli is true.
Don't confuse 'vigilantism' with 'chivalry'. The former concept is an extension of the ancient principle of revenge, where no rules or forms apply. The latter concept involves rules, forms and a measure of politeness and is alien to folks who behave like you do.
Posting here so as to get t
June 12, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Conservative VoicePosting here so as to get this back on top of the topic lists
American Rhetoric Review where are you? <crickets....>
Looks like he has been dispa
June 12, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveLooks like he has been dispatched.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
OK the next one booted off
June 12, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Conservative VoiceOK the next one booted off the island, I nominate Montana lyons only because he keeps making the claim we will...I like to help him with his self fulfilling prophesy.
I second that..........give h
June 12, 2007 - 13:55 ET by florida_chadI second that..........give him what he wants
We will always need a dunce a
June 12, 2007 - 14:02 ET by TruthMongerWe will always need a dunce around here...bal has smartened up considerably...leon is curled up in the fetal position...
If we lose monty will we need to maybe place an ad...?
Awwww, that's cute, Moonbat Monty
June 12, 2007 - 14:12 ET by RJAwwww, that's cute. Moonbat Monty is our official Village Idiot.....
tumbler and arr ... debra???
June 12, 2007 - 14:15 ET by LionKingHaven't heard from Debra lately, has anybody?
ThoughtPolice has been quiet also...or is it just me?
[or the hit-N-run style of the troll]
btw, WhichWing is still moonbatting around !!!
Debra is still lurking around
June 12, 2007 - 14:17 ET by florida_chadDebra is still lurking around. Waiting for a religous thread or one she can inject religion into.
hey, me too - repent ye...
June 12, 2007 - 14:32 ET by TruthMongerhey, me too - repent ye...
Oh come on, I like poking Lyo
June 12, 2007 - 14:23 ET by Airforce_5_OOh come on, I like poking Lyons with a stick. He always paints himself in a corner he can't get out of and then call us idiots, I love it.
Come on, can we keep him. PLLLLEAASSSEEEEEEEEEEEE.
If you promise to feed and wa
June 12, 2007 - 14:29 ET by TruthMongerIf you promise to feed and walk him everyday...
we can keep him
June 12, 2007 - 14:31 ET by LionKingWe can keep him...let's just call him Scarecrow.
Cool Thanks.
June 12, 2007 - 14:41 ET by Airforce_5_OCool Thanks.