This is an idea I'm ripping off from an Atheist Web Site.
When they have an "official" debate, they also create a Peanut Gallery for people to make commentary without posting/derailing the debate thread.
|
|
|
home blogs about forum contact donate search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Open invitation to the Troll -- The Peanut Gallery | |
Comments Policy
June 3, 2007 - 20:07 ET by botgWow, Bruce,This is interestin
June 3, 2007 - 20:10 ET by BlondeWow, Bruce,
This is interesting....you just got put on the top of the thread here.
Bizarro land....well, bizarro topic, too.
I know it's why i went back a
June 3, 2007 - 20:13 ET by botgI know it's why i went back and erased it,
the post by moonbat disappeared also
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
He must have hit the Post c
June 3, 2007 - 20:14 ET by Dave RHe must have hit the Post comment button a little too hard. :-)
Brought the big pointer for t
June 3, 2007 - 20:21 ET by botgBrought the big pointer for that
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I really need to perfect the
June 3, 2007 - 20:26 ET by botgI really need to perfect the technique of going to the top it will come in handy to stay off the second page
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
ARR will prove to be too cowardly to debate?
June 2, 2007 - 22:57 ET by Free StinkerLet me kick this off.
Anyone giving odds on whether ARR will prove to be too cowardly to debate?
My guess is, lots of bluster here, nothing on the Debate Thread.
I prognosticate that he wil
June 2, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI prognosticate that he will not attempt a debate. If he is like most modern-day liberals, the ability to debate is not in his skill-set. So far though, it appears that unlike most modern-day liberals, he is aware of his deficiency of debate skill and will avoid your invitation to the wood-shed. His website rantings show that he is weak--if not completely devoid of executing any rational thought and that he is guided by liberal talking points and his own bleeding-heart emotions.
If he does show up it'll be like watching Mike Tyson's early fights.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I too doubt that ARR's whol
June 2, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Free StinkerI too doubt that ARR's whole will will meet NL on the Debate Thread.
Unsane's visit to The Peanut Gallery
June 2, 2007 - 23:41 ET by UnsaneI forget who said it, but it has been said to liberals (I like calling them Leftists myself), their response to a debate is "that there is no debate". They cannot handle being challenged in the arena of ideas, and you see that all the time here at NB.
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
Your Beloved NL has failed you all!
June 3, 2007 - 19:54 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewIsn't it amazing that in order to try and claim himself "winner" of this subject he had to take the Democrat position? That's a hoot for sure!!! Speaking of “Rich”
He's a scoundrel and this is Scandalous!!!! You better throw this one to the curb along with George Bush.
70 % of you lemmings still believe that Saddam was tied to 9-11... Hope some of you learned a thing or two... or three including NL has left the building!!!!! Don't let the door hit you in the ass!
So Peanut gallery any one else want to pick up this debate where NL left off... Never mind.. It's a total waste of time trying to educate those who can't learn. The only source you learn from is GWB, his cast of criminals, and Faux News.
Wait for it, Troll.You won't
June 3, 2007 - 19:59 ET by BlondeWait for it, Troll.
You won't like it, I guarantee it.
Not only are you reading deficient, you are like a little ADHD kid.
BMy little debate post-in-jes
June 3, 2007 - 20:02 ET by botgB
My little debate post-in-jest to you was prophetic of this moonbats response was it not?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Absolutely, Bruce.As NL said
June 3, 2007 - 20:05 ET by BlondeAbsolutely, Bruce.
As NL said earlier, this one is not as honest as hayes-bat, and meaner than Hater.
It's going to be fun watching the take down.
Only ARR is too stupid to understand what is happening. Even funnier, actually.
You haven't even agreed on th
June 3, 2007 - 20:01 ET by botgARR
You haven't even agreed on the topic yet, i would suggest you wait for the reply from NL. Don't know why you believe that when you were born effects your personality and life, but we all have our foolish beliefs, don't we Aries Monkey?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Arr, you are indeed an idio
June 5, 2007 - 23:51 ET by RESTLESS 1Arr, you are indeed an idiot. I have yet to see anyone here assert that Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 in any way. This was never brought up as a reason to go into Iraq,and was not given as a reason for authorization. WMD and non-compliance with U.N. resolutions were the reasons for toppling Saddam's regime.
Just because some people think that he had some ties to the 9/11 perpetrators does not mean that that is why we went to war with Saddam.
Check the speeches, check the State of the Union Address before we went in, and you see no references to Saddam having ties to 9/11.
Actually, the only credible c
June 10, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Del DolemonteActually, the only credible cite I've found claiming Iraq was involved with 9/11 came from a Federal Judge in New York appointed by...Bill Clinton.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm
Okay Buffalo Bob, if you can
June 2, 2007 - 23:32 ET by botgOkay Buffalo Bob, if you can just get Claribell you can start the show
The peanuts are seated
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I did not see Princess summerfall winterspring's name
June 2, 2007 - 23:47 ET by misterbillI did not see Princess summerfall winterspring's name --what hs happened to her???
i do not know
June 2, 2007 - 23:50 ET by botgi do not know
Misterbill she was mentioned:
June 17, 2007 - 18:34 ET by botgMisterbill she was mentioned:
Princess Haida; Played by Caryl McBain. She was the Canadian version of Princess Summerfall Winterspring.
misterbill: I heard she moved
June 17, 2007 - 18:19 ET by QueenMummisterbill: I heard she moved to Hawaii and had to drop two of her names. She's now Princess SummerSpring. She prefers to remain out of the public eye since that whole Clarabell/Mr. Bluster incident.
BTW, I don't get this Peanut Gallery concept. But I'll keep reading and hope to catch on. Any help would be appreciated.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QMthe peanut gallery was set
June 17, 2007 - 18:29 ET by botgQM
the peanut gallery was set up to go alongside another forum. The other forum was set up to be a debate between only two people. The peanut gallery was set up as place where the rest of us could comment on the debate without interuppting it. It was my silliness that added the Howdy-Doody link.
botg: The rest of you seem to
June 17, 2007 - 18:38 ET by QueenMumbotg: The rest of you seem to be doing pretty well keeping up with things. But I still don't understand how one can jump back and forth between the debates and the Peanut Gallery and manage to keep things straight. Do you read all the debate posts, take notes, and then come to the Peanut Gallery to discuss the discussion? May be a bit too advanced for me. :(
P.S. I got the Howdy Doody thing. Giving away our age? ;)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QM,There are a lot of posts a
June 17, 2007 - 18:45 ET by botgQM,
There are a lot of posts and forums that i will skip completely if they are not of interest. Some of it has to be followed in real-time. There is a 'recent comments' section in the right-hand margin where you can click the comment to follow what is being posted as it happens. Alot of time I'll come on and check only those posts and forums of interest to me then go to recent comments to see whats-up
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Also this peanut gallery was
June 17, 2007 - 18:53 ET by botgAlso this peanut gallery was set up only for the "Invitation to Troll" debate. There are those who have posted here to continue conversations, etc. like we have done today.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
June 17, 2007 - 18:53 ET by botg
ARR is going to be a no show
June 2, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Airforce_5_OARR is going to be a no show. I mean look at his forum posting like this.
I mean He really thinks that is relevant.
I think this is a fine idea!
June 3, 2007 - 09:08 ET by NL207I think this is a fine idea! But so far we've see nothing but the slimey backside of the Troll making haste for the exit ....
No exit here.... Waiting for
June 3, 2007 - 16:51 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewNo exit here.... Waiting for the Blood flow from those of you who still believe the lie!!! I see the door closing on NL207's backside now!!!
Trolling dude,You seriously n
June 3, 2007 - 17:08 ET by BlondeTrolling dude,
You seriously need some new glasses.
Bob To Peanuts Clarabell is back
June 3, 2007 - 16:47 ET by botgA reminder to all to let NL and ARR have their chat without interuption
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yeah. It's going to be hard
June 3, 2007 - 16:51 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYeah. It's going to be hard though, especially with that first response to the challenge.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
MG,Yes it will be hard...but
June 3, 2007 - 16:57 ET by BlondeMG,
Yes it will be hard...but I think Free's idea to keep our comments separate was an excellent one. It should be very interesting, not to mention humorous if these are the kind of debating tactics (I hesitate to call them skills for obvious reasons) this ARR is going to employ.
I can't believe this dude's response. If I'd tried to write one for a lefty, I couldn't have come up with anything more typical than what was posted. Too funny.
Agreed. I'm still laughing.
June 3, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAgreed. I'm still laughing...and he's even in here now trying to rile us up as well.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
MG,I know... :D "tryin
June 3, 2007 - 17:02 ET by BlondeMG,
I know... :D "trying to rile us up"....as if!
Blonde,Could you please pas
June 3, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Dave RBlonde,
Could you please pass the popcorn? :-)
Sure thing, Dave.How about a
June 3, 2007 - 17:14 ET by BlondeSure thing, Dave.
How about a beer with that, while I'm up?
LMAO-Well, as long as you'r
June 3, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Dave RLMAO-Well, as long as you're up. Actually, as we might be here a while, better make it two. :-)
I hope ARR has his First-Aid
June 3, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Clear thinkerI hope ARR has his First-Aid kit handy, he's gonna need it!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Stewarts Key Lime soda anyone
June 3, 2007 - 17:22 ET by botgStewarts Key Lime soda anyone?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Don't mind if I do. "
June 3, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDon't mind if I do.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Bruce,I about lost it reading
June 3, 2007 - 16:53 ET by BlondeBruce,
I about lost it reading ARR's first reply! ROTFLMAO.
He's declared the debate over. Surprise!
Chose the topic and declared himself the winner.
Too funny.
We are waiting for proof that
June 3, 2007 - 16:56 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewWe are waiting for proof that S.H. was involved in the 9-11 attacks........ Not peanut gallery hand wringing
Trolling dude,There's a littl
June 3, 2007 - 17:00 ET by BlondeTrolling dude,
There's a little item on the right hand side of the page that lists the posters present. When someone logs in, they pop to the top of the list. Also, when someone posts, their name goes to the top of the list.
So genius....NL's not here right now. Or is that too difficult for a rude troll like you to understand?
Waiting
June 4, 2007 - 16:06 ET by UnsaneI am waiting for proof that it was ever stated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11-01 by anyone in the Bush administration. And so are the rest of us.
TWELVE DOWN, FOUR TO GO...(until the SPURS' FOURTH RING!!!)
(Don Adams voice): the old he
June 3, 2007 - 16:58 ET by botg(Don Adams voice): the old heads i win tails you lose trick
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Lefty debate tactic #1: Dec
June 3, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveLefty debate tactic #1: Declare the debate is over/there is no debate/there is a scientific consensus, therefore no need for debate.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
It was humorous when he state
June 3, 2007 - 17:06 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewIt was humorous when he stated: “There is no point in discussing a victory by you, since that is not among the possible outcomes.” Typical Lobotomy patient sponsored by the right!
Trolling dude,Try that line o
June 3, 2007 - 17:13 ET by BlondeTrolling dude,
Try that line on NL and you'll be the one with a lobotomy.
And I assure you, it will be the end of your body you obviously think with, when he's wiped your rear end all over the thread.
I am so going to enjoy this.
And Monty has ALREADY posted
June 3, 2007 - 17:01 ET by botgAnd Monty has ALREADY posted on the forum! (doof move of the day)the debate hasn't even begun yet! well i guess rules are for others
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I'm going to have to award
June 3, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI'm going to have to award NL a "ground-rule double" because of Monty's interference.
Judges!? What say ye?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Logic?
June 3, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Clear thinkerI guess I missed something.
How do you accept a debate challenge, and prior to any debate, declare yourself the winner and the debate over?
Using this system would forever squash all debates. You may as well just say..."I'm right, your wrong" and then declare yourself the winner. This reminds me waaay to much of Democrats debating style.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Yup! "The tree of lib
June 3, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYup!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
It was humorous when he state
June 3, 2007 - 17:09 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewIt was humorous when he stated: “There is no point in discussing a victory by you, since that is not among the possible outcomes.” Typical Lobotomy patient sponsored by the right!
Wow deja-vuSupreme Court, N
June 3, 2007 - 17:13 ET by botgWow deja-vu
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Would that be deja vu all ove
June 3, 2007 - 17:16 ET by Clear thinkerWould that be deja vu all over again?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
What NL207 said: "Ther
June 3, 2007 - 17:23 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhat NL207 said: "There is no point in discussing a victory by you, since that is not among the possible outcomes."
What ARR said: "No need for you to reply to this challenge because you have already lost! bye bye!"
NL was saying ARR doesn't have the ability to win a debate, ARR said there is no debate. (Which proved NL's point).
That's a pretty big difference to me.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
How do you accept a debate ch
June 3, 2007 - 17:23 ET by BlondeHow do you accept a debate challenge, and prior to any debate, declare yourself the winner and the debate over?
Come on Clear, you know the answer to this question....Al Gore uses it all the time...."the Debate's Over". It is their debate style. Witness Chris Mathews' questions at the (R) debate. Absurd!
This is so typical of the lefties....all forehead and no brain.
Blonde...The question was mor
June 3, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
The question was more for ARR than anyone else. Somehow I knew he could not answer.
Al Gore is God, at least that's what he says... hehehehehehehe!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Now and hereafter he shall be
June 3, 2007 - 17:30 ET by botgNow and hereafter he shall be known as:
Goracle: Creator of the Internet
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
He also created Global Warmin
June 3, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Clear thinkerHe also created Global Warming!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
too much beans and brocolli?S
June 3, 2007 - 17:47 ET by botgtoo much beans and brocolli?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh great...The troll just pos
June 3, 2007 - 19:46 ET by BlondeOh great...
The troll just posed that he set the topic, with no response, so he won!
What a buffoon!
Sit back, folks, fill up your cocktails....NL is going to tear the head off this rude troll.
Blonde my topic is 1+1=2, i t
June 3, 2007 - 19:51 ET by botgBlonde my topic is 1+1=2, i take the pro side you take the con, I WIN.
Haven't heard from you I WIN AGAIN.
You must be slippin'
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Sorry, Bruce....Like I said,
June 3, 2007 - 19:53 ET by BlondeSorry, Bruce....
Like I said, I was refilling my adult beverage.
Quite alright, i was only il
June 3, 2007 - 19:57 ET by botgQuite alright, i was only illustrating lib-logic, note i wrote the too late part before i posted. (same as the concensus debates over logic)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Hold on there quick draw
June 3, 2007 - 20:45 ET by American Rhetoric Review1 man + 1 woman joined in marriage = 1 marriage……… Prove me wrong!
And that you lug heads is how you debate
Masturbators you maybe debaters not!
liberal math
June 3, 2007 - 20:52 ET by LionKingLiberal math:
1 bicycle + 1 tricycle = 5 wheels....Prove me wrong!
LKYou forgot the pre-pubescen
June 3, 2007 - 21:00 ET by botgLK
You forgot the pre-pubescent put-downs
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Naughty, Bruce.Lion is one of
June 3, 2007 - 21:02 ET by BlondeNaughty, Bruce.
Lion is one of us, of course he forgot.
...
June 3, 2007 - 21:04 ET by LionKing<Hat tip>
accept my apology
June 3, 2007 - 21:02 ET by LionKingPlease forgive me and accept my apology...I just cannot lower myself to that level.
Blondie and LKi knew that it'
June 3, 2007 - 21:04 ET by botgBlondie and LK
i knew that it's why i was pointing it out, helping a friend
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
NL replies
June 3, 2007 - 21:42 ET by botgJust read NL's reply, Monday comes early, goodnight all
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Wrong i do NOT debate by equi
June 3, 2007 - 20:57 ET by botgWrong i do NOT debate by equivocating on the sides. It is how you debate. Note on one side of the equation you use people, on the other you use a relationship between people. Comparing apples to oranges, very sophomoric sophistry, followed by juvenile name calling. Really, ARR, if you consider that skillful debate, may i suggest night-school? Really you remind me of myself in 7th grade.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Wow, that is extremely, um, s
June 3, 2007 - 20:58 ET by BlondeWow, that is extremely, um, stupid.
Typical.
And BTW, gramatically backwards, as well.
I think Aries-Monkey graduate
June 3, 2007 - 21:02 ET by botgI think Aries-Monkey graduated from the Pee-Wee Herman debate summer camp.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh Wow...It is so clear that
June 3, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Airforce_5_OOh Wow...It is so clear that you bring nothing of substance to this blog.
Please actually put together a cohesive argument to the subjects being discussed.
Thanks.
ARR is not even equipped to debate
June 3, 2007 - 20:49 ET by LionKing"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." -- ARR's post in the debate
ARR is not even equipped to debate. Let's see...Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11...Saddam is also responsible for 9-11??? What kind of crack-induced logic is that?
I think that ARR's whole pu
June 3, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Free StinkerI think that ARR's whole put more effort into his peanut gallery posts than his part of the debate.
And I stilll say he's a sock puppet for Bill Maher.
NL vs ARR debate
June 4, 2007 - 10:22 ET by SportPoliticsI thought it was strange ARR claimed he had positive proof Saddam and AQ did not ally on the 911 attack. Although the 911 report and others have claimed they did not FIND evidence to prove it, they never claimed they defnitively disproved it.
A small body of inconlclusive evidence doesn't prove or disprove. Arguments over the Atta meeting in Prague, the definitely occurred Iraq intel and AQ meetings in the Khartoum area, the Saddam H foreign ambassador meeting with AQ in Afghanistan, the PAYCHECK STUBLeslie Stahl had where Saddam PAID Osama shown on 60 minutes and according to Leslie VERIFIED as authentic with the CIA...
I guess none of that is proof that Saddam and AQ cooperated with the attack on 911, but then again, none of that disproves it either.
The 911 report more or less reluctantly admits they definitely had a TRUCE - or rather an agreement that they would not be attacking eachother, not that they ever had. In fact I know of NO EVIDENCE that they ever attacked eachother. So, it was an ongoing friendship. LOL
That's what it really was. The source of any friction was perhaps Saudi Arabia's felt threat from Saddam, and Osama's desire to be the one who went into Kuwait and expelled Saddam, Yet I've never heard what Osama's final plan was there, other than to assume the Caliphate Seat - which Osama claims is BAGDAD.
Now, if you wanted to be BMOC in Bagdad, would you weasel in and cooperate to learn all you can of the region ? Yes, you would. Would you "call" and say hey, we're going to attack your worst enemy, the Satan ! Yes, you might.
I guess ARR lost, because he claims there was no relationship there concerning 911, but his sources if he cites them merely state they "found" evidence of agreement that they would not be attacking eachother, which amounts to cooperation. They certainly cooperated in Khartoum, unless Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madelline, and Richard Clarke all lied, including lies in front of the 911 commission.
So, ARR loses that one. No proof of cooperation is not disproof of cooperation, unless he actually has something else to show.
And to add Sport, President B
June 4, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Conservative VoiceAnd to add Sport, President Bush never said we are at war with AQ...he said terrorists...so the argument should be if ARR was man enough, to claim Iraq...or rather Saddam didn't have ties to any terrorists. If he could make such a claim then the Iraq war isn't part of the war on terror, but a separate war with Iraq.
Wordsmith attempts made ... NOT ACCEPTED
June 4, 2007 - 11:26 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewNo where did I say as you stated:
"ARR claimed he had positive proof Saddam and AQ did not ally on the 911 attack"
I never even mentioned AQ!!!!!!! Don't ever give a republican an inch of leeway they twist and spin everything!
I stated my position and your brain child of this board has yet to address the debate.....
Looks like this peanut gallery has been made into peanut butter....
NL took the side of the democrats in order to declare himself a winner when in fact he's nothing but a whiner.
I chose the topic, stated my position of “Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11”, which is the progressive position, and there has been no one that has provided debate to support the conservative position. Yet the polls show that 70% of republicans still believe the lie that Saddam was responsible for 9-11...... What’s with you lemmings…. Are you afraid to defend your beliefs?
Your great white hope has failed.... You need to take up this issue with your masturbator that he failed to take up the republican/conservative position held by the vast majority of your party.
My position remains as previously stated.... No wordsmithing allowed!
Arr...matey
June 4, 2007 - 11:29 ET by The Wicked Conservativeplease refer me to the poll substantiating this or stop making things up
Yet the polls show that 70% of republicans still believe the lie that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.
It has been said that 42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot!
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Wicked, you forgot to menti
June 4, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Conservative VoiceWicked, you forgot to mention the 92.3% of the 42.7% are statistics made up by Democrats.
No spin sir, it isn't a mat
June 4, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Conservative VoiceNo spin sir, it isn't a matter of a Democrat position...
because no one has made the claim otherwise.
But prove to us that Saddam and ilk weren't supporting terrorists?
Looks like this peanut gall
June 4, 2007 - 19:08 ET by Free StinkerLooks like this peanut gallery has been made into peanut butter
Now I'm convinced . . . that you're 12 years old! (and dumber than a 12 year old)
" chose the topic, state
June 6, 2007 - 13:30 ET by" chose the topic, stated my position of “Saddam had positively no direct connections to the attacks on 9-11”, which is the progressive position, and there has been no one that has provided debate to support the conservative position. Yet the polls show that 70% of republicans still believe the lie that Saddam was responsible for 9-11...... What’s with you lemmings…. Are you afraid to defend your beliefs?"
so that means that 90 % of this board still believes this...but orwellian double speak loves to question and ask for proof that he wasnt connected to al quaeda...and we wonder why with this neocon logic why fox news never goes into this...they have obviously mannered themselves after hannity or oreilly where they give little evidence..only spin, over drama and loud interuptive voices ..how can a liberal ever win a debate when these buffoons have the last word.?? and the control of the moderation and edit buttonsits like loyalists wanting to fight the monty python knight(since you all love to bring this comedy group up so much) when it has no limbs left...Stick to your guns, old chap and dont entertain them when they only want to follow their own rules that they make up as they go along.
monty...show me
June 6, 2007 - 13:35 ET by LionKingWhat polls show 70% believe Saddam was involved with 9-11? When did Bush or anyone in his Admin state that Saddam was involved directly with 9-11?
[Note: Again, the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda does not qualify.]
Perfect example above of side
June 6, 2007 - 13:41 ET byPerfect example above of sidestepping the questions. umm ...what was the real reason for us going to war??
hmmm
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons
They were many reasons. Do yo
June 6, 2007 - 13:43 ET by florida_chadThey were many reasons. Do you remember anything other than WMD?
Not offhand, chad
June 6, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Cool ArrowHow about firing on our planes in the agreed upon no-fly zone?
We should have responded imme
June 6, 2007 - 13:52 ET by florida_chadWe should have responded immediately to that.
monty ???
June 6, 2007 - 13:48 ET by LionKingRemember the War on Terror?
We went after the terrorists wherever they were...Afghanistan and Iraq. To get to the terrorists in Iraq, we had to go through Saddam the Butcher and his 2 rapist sons.
I guess if you condone Saddam and sons behavior you would have trouble understanding why we deposed him.
[btw, thanks for providing the links to the poll and the quotes from the Bush Admin. I guess if you do not have proof, use the typical liberal approach and just assert. Ouch!!! That had to hurt you.]
so we went in there now to go
June 6, 2007 - 14:00 ET byso we went in there now to go to after terror?? ...so that has evolved into the real reason??
not after saddam and his rapist sons?
no other reason??
hmm
A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons