THE GREAT WHITE BEAR

I have been hoping someone knew what we are doing there! Thanks for the lead.
 

You mean to tell me no one knows until Mr. Packer enlightened us? Aw, come on, Jed? If you have a good memory, and listen to your favorite liberal Democrats and believe what they say as 'Gospel,' and what they say is unchanging and the truth, you need to see what they say about Saddam and Iraq back during the Clinton Administration. Apparently, had they the chance they would've done what our evil current president is doing.

Bear, save your money on these books and buy some Leiney's. You'll be better off nutritionally. Yes, I know I'm "poisoning the well." I just wanted to know how it feels to speak in fallacies so I can understand the other side better.
 

UL.. some people are more wedded to their ideology than to the truth. It's the difference between an ideologue and a pragmatist.
 

Did anyone see Bush accuse liberals of rewriting the history of the Iraq war???? Definition of irony: A man who changed his version of the story every time his false evidence was debunked accusing the people who debunked his evidence of rewriting history...
 

Greatwhitebear:

Well...change! The truth is the only way to go.

Laura:

You need to take a deep breath and relax. The Clinton admin. plus Senate and Congressional democrats were all calling for Saddam's ouster long before Bush came into the Whitehouse. So to say he falsified intel is stupid. Unless he was in charge of deceiving England, France, Germany, the U.N. and the Clinton Administration and the entire Congressional body all while he was Texas governor. Don't be so gullible!
 

UL: If you actually read my comment, instead of reading into it, you'll see that's not what I said.

What I said was that the whitehouse kept changing the reason why they went. First it was WMDs and 9/11, then it was to spread freedom, then it was for the greater war on terror... what is it now?

I never said anything about prior intel, or even manipulating intel. Do I think the Bushies "manipulated" intelligence - depends on your definition. I think they strategically selected the intelligence they wanted to focus on and ignored the rest. That seems to be their modus operandi with many issues.

Global warming: discount piles of scientific evidence and focus on a few studies done by petroleum industries.

Sex Education: Discount studies that say it doesn't work and promote your own program anyway.

The Economy: Discount the evidence that trickle down economics doesn't work, and do it anyway.

Iraq: Shenseki says we need 300,000 troops - fire him. Wilson questions the Niger claim - out his wife and smear him on national television.

It's an addiction with these clowns.
 

I'm glad I don't have you as a news source, Laura. The liberal media has stated that Bush tied Iraq and Saddam to 9/11, not Bush. So it wasn't Bush who lied, but the media. Not only Bush, most most of the free world thought that Saddam had WMD's. Now he doesn't. So the LOGICAL thing to ask is, "Where are the WMD's?" To assume he never had them is incredibly silly.

There was no manipulating the intel. Sorry. I know you'd love to see it that way, so you can justify your maniacal attacks on Bush.

Global Warming: Junk Science if attributed to greenhouse gases. If that's the case, then Mars is subject to our greenhouse gases as well, right? Hint: look up in the sky, during the day when there are no clouds. The big bright thing is the cause for global warming.

Sex education: Why spend money on stupid programs when kids are going to learn it on the bus anyway. Might as well pass out condoms and tell them to clean up their mess they're done, right?

Wilson/Plame outing: do you have info that Fitzgerald doesn't have? If so, better give him a call.

Well, this has been really not so stimulating. I'm going to step back from you bound cave dwellers and get some fresh air outside.
 

(Rolling Eyes)

Real mature. Why is it that when your kind get upset you resort to namecalling? Just curious? I think it's you sir, that needs to go watch some cartoons. You take yourself WAY too seriously. It's bad for your health.
 

UL - you are the definition of ideologue. Seriously, look it up in the dictionary. Your picture is there!

An ideology is supposed to be a means to an end. An ideologue is somebody for whom the means has become the end.

Facts don't matter to an ideologue, except when they can be manipulated to support the ideology. So it doesn't matter that 97% percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe the evidence is strong and clear that global warming is a reality, and fossil fuels are the main cause. Or the 97% of the members of the American Meteorological Society. You'll blithely side with the 3% on the lunatic fringe because it is their conclusions that support your ideology.

And you will continue to believe in voodoo economics (as the president's father once referred to it), in spite the fact that the number of Americans living below the poverty line has risen to 18% from the 11% it stood at when Reagan took office. You will continue to believe the neocon ideology long after it has been thoroughly discredited, because the truth no longer matters, just the ideology.

And when you can't prove your point, you will resort to name calling, because that is the only weapon you have left at your disposal, having lost since lost sight of, or interest in, the truth.
 

You're all a bunch of dummies if you think I name call!

Really! My picture is in the dictionary? Cool. I hope it's not one of those hand drawn pictures. Not very becoming. I should call my Ma!

As to facts, Bear, you contradict yourself. You contradictor you!
If 97% believe global warming to be caused by fossil fuel emissions, so what? If they believe that we cause the Martian CO2 ice caps to melt, should I believe that also? So I'm a part of the LUNATIC FRINGE in the 3%? You name caller, you! Wait a minute, that makes me a name caller if I call you a name caller! I'm hopeless.

Oh, well I have no interest in the truth. So long snobs!