Syria and political hypocrisy

Taft2016 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
.READ the information and THEN try to logically and factually refute them, if you can.
Click to expand...


Oh, this is rich. *YOU* are telling *ME* to respond logically if *I* can. lol.

Perhaps if I use your logic. Here:

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States.
Al Capone was originally from Brooklyn.
Ireland is a predominantly Roman Catholic country.

There. I'm right. Prove me wrong.

Dipstick.
Click to expand...

See folks, Taft2016 is just another intellectually impotent neocon/teabagger blowhard. When faced with verified, documented facts that he cannot logically or factually disprove, Taft2016 either tries to change the subject, distort what others say, or just babbles nonsense and strawmans.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...and-political-hypocrisy&p=1313960#post1313960

The chronology of the posts makes a fool of Taft2016, and all he can do is insipidly lie and deny repeatedly.

Taft2016 is finished, and will now just repeat his failed tactics over and over. I have no further need to engage him.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See folks, Taft2016 is just another intellectually impotent neocon/teabagger blowhard. When faced with verified, documented facts that he cannot logically or factually disprove, Taft2016 either tries to change the subject, distort what others say, or just babbles nonsense and strawmans.
Click to expand...

So you're denying Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President?
You're denying Al Capone hailed from Brooklyn?
You're denying Ireland is predominantly Roman Catholic?

I have links and can prove all of the above.
Can you disprove any of it?

Time for you to put up, shut up, or admit I'm right.

Pyscho.
 
<ascends soapbox>

You see folks, Taichiliberal has a psychological challenge that precludes him from ever admitting so much as the fact that he may have misread or misunderstood a question.

In response, he runs off on irrelevant tangents and tortured distortions of logic to avoid doing so, and after post after post of this undicepherable gibberish, he ends by saying "I never said that!"

In closing, he is a liberal maniac not worthy of reading.

Thank you.

<raucous applause from the crowd>

<descends from soapbox, waving to adoring throngs>
 
Rana said:
We did not start the civil war in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites were only kept from fighting by the brutality of Saddams regime.
Click to expand...

So a brutal megalomaniac who attacks his neighbors is better than reprsentative Democracy when it comes to brown people in the Middle East; ;)
 
evince said:
how we got hit on 911 was that we ignored a country giving harbor to people who clearly wanted to kill us on our own soil.


Thank Bush for that.


If you harbor AQ and asllow them to operate in your country what should this country do?
Click to expand...

Another incredibly stupid "blame Bush" claim; you mean thank Clinton. He ignored it for eight years and had a chance to take Bin Laden out but because he ruled by popular opinion polls, felt it a bad gamble to pull the trigger. Democrats, can't live with them, can't shoot them.
 
Taichiliberal said:
the invasion of Iraq was about

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.
Click to expand...

That is an incredible massive pile of uninformed bile; why is it brain dead liberals feel so compelled to lie all the time? Because they are stupid? Perhaps because they are gullible? Or is it because they know they cannot support their moronic claims with any facts and have to fabricate their own versions of reality?

You're about as dense as one can get on a topic you are woefully inept to debate.

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

The trans caspian pipeline has nothing to do with Iraqi oil; it has only been talked about as a potential additional link.

The US recieves very little oil from Iraq, before and after the war. So the claims about oil are nothing more than claptrap from gullible idiots desperately trying to find a way to criticize American interests and their most hated figure in the world; George W.

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.

We already kicked Hussein's ass out of Kuwait and he was little to zero threat to Kuwait; another idiots claim.

The Joint Resolution contains everything you need to understand about why we invaded Iraq; it wasn't about oil, and it wasn't ONLY about WMDs.

How amusing that Liberals who continue to impugn Bush for invading Iraq think that attacks on Syria are justified.
 
Truth Detector said:
So a brutal megalomaniac who attacks his neighbors is better than reprsentative Democracy when it comes to brown people in the Middle East; ;)
Click to expand...

Saddam was a prick... but the world is full of countries led by pricks.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam was doing three things in Iraq that we really ought to have let him continue to do because we needed someone to do them so that we could concentrate on the real threat of Islamic extremist terror.

1. He kept Islamic wahabbist extremists OUT of Iraq.
2. He was an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony
3. He kept sunnis and shiites from wholesale slaughtering one another.

We went in and have been unable to do any of those things anywhere near as effectively as he did. That's the game of realpolitik and we need to learn how to play it a hell of a lot better than we have done so far.
 
maineman said:
Saddam was a prick... but the world is full of countries led by pricks. The fact of the matter is that Saddam was doing three things in Iraq that we really ought to have let him continue to do because we needed someone to do them do that we could concentrate on the real threat of Islamic extremist terror. 1. He kept Islamic wahabbist extremists OUT of Iraq.
2. He was an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony 3. He kept sunnis and shiites from wholesale slaughtering one another.
We went in and have been unable to do any of those things anywhere near as effectively as he did. That's the game of realpolitik and we need to learn how to play it a hell of a lot better than we have done so far.
Click to expand...

So you say.
 
maineman said:
Saddam was a prick... but the world is full of countries led by pricks.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam was doing three things in Iraq that we really ought to have let him continue to do because we needed someone to do them so that we could concentrate on the real threat of Islamic extremist terror.

1. He kept Islamic wahabbist extremists OUT of Iraq.
2. He was an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony
3. He kept sunnis and shiites from wholesale slaughtering one another.

We went in and have been unable to do any of those things anywhere near as effectively as he did. That's the game of realpolitik and we need to learn how to play it a hell of a lot better than we have done so far.
Click to expand...

This coming from the idiot who now thinks we need to bomb Syria; you're a charicature of hyper partisan hypocrisy.
 
Truth Detector said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
the invasion of Iraq was about

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.
Click to expand...


That is an incredible massive pile of uninformed bile; why is it brain dead liberals feel so compelled to lie all the time? Because they are stupid? Perhaps because they are gullible? Or is it because they know they cannot support their moronic claims with any facts and have to fabricate their own versions of reality?

You're about as dense as one can get on a topic you are woefully inept to debate.

1. Securing a pipeline of natural resource through the area to supply US/European interest (ie, the Caspian Sea)

The trans caspian pipeline has nothing to do with Iraqi oil; it has only been talked about as a potential additional link.

The US recieves very little oil from Iraq, before and after the war. So the claims about oil are nothing more than claptrap from gullible idiots desperately trying to find a way to criticize American interests and their most hated figure in the world; George W.

2. To keep Hussein from gaining (or regaining) control of Kuwait, which would give him a heavy margin control of the regional oil supply to the world.

We already kicked Hussein's ass out of Kuwait and he was little to zero threat to Kuwait; another idiots claim.

The Joint Resolution contains everything you need to understand about why we invaded Iraq; it wasn't about oil, and it wasn't ONLY about WMDs.

How amusing that Liberals who continue to impugn Bush for invading Iraq think that attacks on Syria are justified.
Click to expand...

Your revisionism would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically ignorant. Here's how I reduced your buddy Taft to a babbling idiot: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...and-political-hypocrisy&p=1313960#post1313960


And just to remind you willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger parrots of reality:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

To date neither you or your compadres can logically or factually disprove my opening post. Trying to revive all the long dead talking points of the Shrubs bogus Iraq invasion is just blowing smoke to deter from the aforementioned fact. Carry on.
 
Fascinating theory.

Bush cooked intelligence on Iraq so that Europeans living on the Mediterranean would have access to cheaper oil.

lol.
 
Taichiliberal said:
To date neither you or your compadres can logically or factually disprove my opening post. Trying to revive all the long dead talking points of the Shrubs bogus Iraq invasion is just blowing smoke to deter from the aforementioned fact. Carry on.
Click to expand...

How does one refute fabricated unadulterated bullshit? You declare it for what it is; BULLSHIT.

Be careful, you're stepping in it now and removing all doubt that you're an idiot.
 
Taft2016 said:
Fascinating theory.

Bush cooked intelligence on Iraq so that Europeans living on the Mediterranean would have access to cheaper oil.

lol.
Click to expand...

It is incredibly stupid; but then this is what you get when you debate idiots. Incredibly stupid arguments lacking in facts, reality and the truth.
 
Truth Detector said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
To date neither you or your compadres can logically or factually disprove my opening post. Trying to revive all the long dead talking points of the Shrubs bogus Iraq invasion is just blowing smoke to deter from the aforementioned fact. Carry on.
Click to expand...

How does one refute fabricated unadulterated bullshit? You declare it for what it is; BULLSHIT.

Be careful, you're stepping in it now and removing all doubt that you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so I provide DOCUMENTED FACTS from valid sources (matters of fact backed by history), and all your dumbass can do is yell "it's all lies".

:palm:

You're a joke, bunky...and you'll keep getting your mental ass kicked by me every time you follow me around...you'll be so far in denial you'll pass Egypt soon. So you and that other clown Taft can keep each other warm with maudlin exchanges on your shared delusion. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, so I provide DOCUMENTED FACTS from valid sources (matters of fact backed by history), and all your dumbass can do is yell "it's all lies".

:palm:

You're a joke, bunky...and you'll keep getting your mental ass kicked by me every time you follow me around...you'll be so far in denial you'll pass Egypt soon. So you and that other clown Taft can keep each other warm with maudlin exchanges on your shared delusion. Carry on.
Click to expand...

This is intended for your benefit, though I doubt you'll heed the message...

You're like a fighter who gets knocked out cold 30 seconds into the first round and is left laying on the canvas. Everyone leaves the arena, the cleaners sweep up, the lights get turned out... then you awake at 3 in the morning and run around the ring with your arms in the air claiming victory.

IOW, you look like a fool.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, so I provide DOCUMENTED FACTS from valid sources (matters of fact backed by history), and all your dumbass can do is yell "it's all lies".

:palm:

You're a joke, bunky...and you'll keep getting your mental ass kicked by me every time you follow me around...you'll be so far in denial you'll pass Egypt soon. So you and that other clown Taft can keep each other warm with maudlin exchanges on your shared delusion. Carry on.
Click to expand...

This is intended for your benefit, though I doubt you'll heed the message...

You're like a fighter who gets knocked out cold 30 seconds into the first round and is left laying on the canvas. Everyone leaves the arena, the cleaners sweep up, the lights get turned out... then you awake at 3 in the morning and run around the ring with your arms in the air claiming victory.

IOW, you look like a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top