Right Wingers Are All Morons

[BOLO]

Scummybear!!!!

Moron,

How could you be so insensitive.
You have insulted morons all over the world by comparing these idiots, and the liberalhatemongermoron with real morons.
Who by the way have a union. The International Brotherhood of Morons, Dummies, and Dunces. (Local 409)

Otherwise known as The IBMDD. (Ibe emty)
Ah well let us hope no one sues. The EEO get's ahold of this, we could have problems.

[JesterCerberus]

ldd said:

My question to you liberal gurus is: What should be done about the war in Iraq? I hear only criticism coming from the left, and never any solutions. Kerry, himself, has said that his priority will be to "disarm" the terrorist states -- but he doesn't explain how he plans to do it. In the meantime, that is what Bush is doing now. At first Kerry voted for it, then against it - what kind of leadership and clear thinking does that show?

Liberals were the first to tell Bush that he was too late in reacting to 9/11 when he entered Afghanistan, and then said that he was too early in entering Iraq! Meanwhile, Bush is taking the fight to the people who would like nothing better than to see this country obliterated off the face of the earth, rather than lob a couple of missiles (a la Clinton) and wait for them to attack again inside our borders.

Everyone here understands that you hate Bush -- but rather than just generally attack the man personally out of emotion, why don't you introduce a few substantive suggestions about alternative means to end terrorist attacks on the free world? Kerry has not not laid out one single, solid plan that supports his "promises" for ending terrorism - he just says that he will.

Bush, on the other hand, is doing something that should have been done by another president (who obviously felt that his sexual satisfaction was a higher priority than national security) after the World Trade Center was bombed the first time.

Entering Iraq did not anger the terrorists. They were already angry - the first clue was the first bombing of the WTC. The solution to all of this isn't simple, but simply attacking and criticizing the President isn't the way to reach a solution.

Why do you think anyone wants to listen to anything you have to say if you begin with general, hate-spewing tirades? All of us want this to end, but perhaps you should be trying to fill us in one the actual plans and strategies to end this that Kerry has offered during his campaign. Of course, he hasn't offered anything but poorly thought-out slogans and statements, many of which he reverses himself on daily -- so hate-spewing and criticisms may be the only tools that you liberals have left in your arsenal.

They aren't working......

I think that you are right, entering Iraq did not really anger the terrorist that much more. What it did do was anger and alienate a whole new group of people, the people of Iraq. After all the people of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC.
Beyond the fact that I think that war was not the right thing to do I don't think it made us safer in the least and has lead to a larger gap between us and the rest of the world.

What I think would lead to a safer America may not be concrete enough for those who like to see obvious proof that our government is working such as big explosions and millitary combat. This would be to increase the amount of intelligence our country is getting. That is really what can prevent terrorist from attacking is knowing ahead of time and stopping them. Though some might say that is what the Patriot Act is doing I also think that it is important to have intelligence outside the US. This means relying on our allies to let us know whats going on. This also requires a strong relationship with our allies, which I believe that the war in Iraq diminshed in many ways.

[UncleVinny]

Please DO NOT read any further if you are easily offended or prone to violence.
This is for mature audiences only.
If you cannot engage in reasonable debate, then just relegate Uncle Vinny to the loony bin, and move on to another discussion.

I watched with eager anticipation what the Republicans had to offer by way of defense for their policies. Part of me was hoping there might be some high moral ground for their stance, especially with regard to Iraq. It became painfully obvious, as the speeches began, that their defense of the war is:

- Intellectually stunted
- Morally bankrupt, and
- Devoid of honesty.

Intellectually stunted, because the motivation for the war is being based on the emotional angst growing out of the World Trade Center bombing. Iraq had nothing to do with that. Al Queda and the Taliban were responsible for that. Here is a classic bait and switch routine, where the emotions of the public are being channeled into an inappropriate response. Now Saddam becomes the target, apparently because he’s a visible target in a shadowy world of terrorism. Now Bush and Cheney have got their followers waving flags and singing, in support of a war labeled as patriotic, labeled as the front in the fight against terrorism. Only a dim-witted fool would fall for that line of reasoning.

Morally bankrupt, because people know in their heart that killing is wrong. Torture is wrong. On very rare occasions, when a dictator is invading other countries, it may be appropriate to use force to stop him. But to go to war because an enemy MIGHT have weapons, and MIGHT use them, is deception on a grand scale, and does not justify an invasion. So, for the US, for the first time in history, to invade a sovereign country, to kill its citizens, and to then hint it’s God’s will, and in the name of democracy, is a crime of the first order.

Devoid of honesty, because the leaders of this movement are using an emotional frenzy to whip up support for “non-winable” war. Even more outrageous is the cover-up of the real reasons – the takeover of Arab lands, the enrichment of the oil companies, the profiteering of the war machine and it’s contractors, like Halliburton, and the thinly veiled hatred of the Islamic faith.

I would have expected more from McCain and Guliani. What a farce that they should espouse any allegiance to him!

Here is a leader who eats his own children. He spread lies about John McCain; used a telephone campaign to advertise that McCain has a black baby (because McCain had adopted a child from Bengladesh), and hinted that his wife was fooling around, hinted that McCain had lost his marble being in the POW camp too long – then he distances himself from the smear campaign. Just like he distances himself from the people who trashed war hero McClelland, and war hero John Kerry. Is that the kind of person you want in the White House? What a sad commentary that so many good hearted Americans are falling victim to the Big Lie!

[scummybear]

I watched with eager anticipation what the Republicans had to offer by way of defense for their policies. Part of me was hoping there might be some high moral ground for their stance, especially with regard to Iraq. It became painfully obvious, as the speeches began, that their defense of the war is:

- Intellectually stunted
- Morally bankrupt, and
- Devoid of honesty.

I'm quite sure that you were looking for high moral ground. ::)I think it should be pointed out that you were just waiting for it to begin, so you could drone out the usual, mindless template of crap that you and other Bush-haters like to sound out. .

Intellectually stunted, because the motivation for the war is being based on the emotional angst growing out of the World Trade Center bombing. Iraq had nothing to do with that. Al Queda and the Taliban were responsible for that.

Please tell me you're not that daft. You don't believe that Iraq facilitated some responsibilty by way of sheltering, funding, and yes Virginia, collaborating with the terrorists groups responsible for killing thousands of Americans and other world citizens??

Here is a classic bait and switch routine, where the emotions of the public are being channeled into an inappropriate response. Now Saddam becomes the target, apparently because he’s a visible target in a shadowy world of terrorism. Now Bush and Cheney have got their followers waving flags and singing, in support of a war labeled as patriotic, labeled as the front in the fight against terrorism. Only a dim-witted fool would fall for that line of reasoning.

This particular paragraph is a strong indicator that you already know that it's over for Kerry. And you take a last desparate shot at millions of "dim-witted" people across this nation who know that if Kerry was elected to the office of president, he would render us defenseless against those who want to kill us.

Morally bankrupt, because people know in their heart that killing is wrong. Torture is wrong. On very rare occasions, when a dictator is invading other countries, it may be appropriate to use force to stop him. But to go to war because an enemy MIGHT have weapons, and MIGHT use them, is deception on a grand scale, and does not justify an invasion.

Brilliant! You contradict yourself nicely. You people are so predictable. You ignore "killing" and "torture" when it suits you. Why is it that you, and others like you believe that you get to decide what a just cause is? You must have missed the part about about Hussein's murderous rampage against human beings on his own soil, as well as in other lands. Also, weapons have been found. Weapons have been destroyed. Weapons have been hidden. Did you think we would find them wrapped in nice paper with a bow on it?

So, for the US, for the first time in history, to invade a sovereign country, to kill its citizens, and to then hint it’s God’s will, and in the name of democracy, is a crime of the first order.

Ah, yes. The sleepy little hamlet of Iraq; where life was peaceful, and everyone was free and happy in their tyrrany!

Devoid of honesty, because the leaders of this movement are using an emotional frenzy to whip up support for “non-winable” war. Even more outrageous is the cover-up of the real reasons – the takeover of Arab lands, the enrichment of the oil companies, the profiteering of the war machine and it’s contractors, like Halliburton, and the thinly veiled hatred of the Islamic faith.

There it is!!! Oil, and Haliburton. How original Vinny!

I would have expected more from McCain and Guliani. What a farce that they should espouse any allegiance to him!

Just Dim-wits, right?

Here is a leader who eats his own children. He spread lies about John McCain; used a telephone campaign to advertise that McCain has a black baby (because McCain had adopted a child from Bengladesh), and hinted that his wife was fooling around, hinted that McCain had lost his marble being in the POW camp too long – then he distances himself from the smear campaign. Just like he distances himself from the people who trashed war hero McClelland, and war hero John Kerry. Is that the kind of person you want in the White House? What a sad commentary that so many good hearted Americans are falling victim to the Big Lie!

This is the paragraph where you completely lose all credibilty. At this point, the paranoia really bleeds through. You have a wonderful imagination Vinny. Don't waste it on worn-out liberal rhetoric.

[TNRighty]

Perhaps you should read what some of your liberal leaders had to say about Iraq BEFORE defeating W became more important than our nation's security.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Flip flop, flip flop.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[TNRighty]

Oh there's more.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"I hope Saddam Hussein... clearly understand the resolve and determination of this [Clinton] administration and this country. This may be a political year... but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force... [Saddam] has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period. Look, we have exhausted virtually [all] our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. I don't know what purpose is served by attacking one another on this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it... Let's not... send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community."
-Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD), 1998

What is it with these people?

[UncleVinny]

Thanks for sharing, Scummy.
Nice replies, but no substance there, no reasoned arguements.

"You don't believe that Iraq facilitated some responsibilty by way of sheltering, funding, and yes Virginia, collaborating with the terrorists groups responsible for killing thousands of Americans and other world citizens??"

That's true. Most experts contend that Saddam was intolerant of terrorists, as they interfered with his dictatorial agends.


"This particular paragraph is a strong indicator that you already know that it's over for Kerry. And you take a last desparate shot at millions of "dim-witted" people across this nation who know that if Kerry was elected to the office of president, he would render us defenseless against those who want to kill us."

Nahh! We got an ace in the hole.
Most surveys measure likely voters, and thanks to our pals at MoveOn.org and ACT, we now have THOUSANDS of minorities registered to vote who have never voted before. Nothing like a little disenfranchisement in Florida to get the ghetto brothers out to the polls. So don't be too mean, I might get one to marry your sister.

[BOLO]

Thanks for sharing, Scummy.
Nice replies, but no substance there, no reasoned arguements.

"You don't believe that Iraq facilitated some responsibilty by way of sheltering, funding, and yes Virginia, collaborating with the terrorists groups responsible for killing thousands of Americans and other world citizens??"

That's true. Most experts contend that Saddam was intolerant of terrorists, as they interfered with his dictatorial agends.


"This particular paragraph is a strong indicator that you already know that it's over for Kerry. And you take a last desparate shot at millions of "dim-witted" people across this nation who know that if Kerry was elected to the office of president, he would render us defenseless against those who want to kill us."

Nahh! We got an ace in the hole.
Most surveys measure likely voters, and thanks to our pals at MoveOn.org and ACT, we now have THOUSANDS of minorities registered to vote who have never voted before. Nothing like a little disenfranchisement in Florida to get the ghetto brothers out to the polls. So don't be too mean, I might get one to marry your sister.

Uncle Vinny, you and Kerry have much in common. Losers.
The lack of substance, and reason, was evident through out your entire post. Till it started becoming rambling, and incoherent. Then it got better.

Nahh! We got an ace in the hole.
Most surveys measure likely voters, and thanks to our pals at MoveOn.org and ACT, we now have THOUSANDS of minorities registered to vote who have never voted before. Nothing like a little disenfranchisement in Florida to get the ghetto brothers out to the polls. So don't be too mean, I might get one to marry your sister.

Nahh!!! What you don't know is that most surveys measures any one that will answer, and accept a buck or two for it. As to Ace in the Hole.
Ours is this. Many Hundreds of Thousnds of pissed off Viet Nam Era Vets.
Many more times that number of Gulf War Vets and Vets from this war.
As many Reserve and National Guard troops.
Many members of the Armed Forces who were dis enfranchised in Florida, and other States, by Al Gore, and the Democratic Party.
Don't worry none of them would want to marry anything like you.
Throw in the Americans that are able to discern, and are intelligent, and we have a majority. (You and Kerry get the rest.)
This Viet Nam Vet speaks for a great many.
Hanoi Kerry will not ever be President of The United states.
Kerry is a liar.
Kerry is a dishonorable person.
Kerry is Unfit to Command.
The Johns will be flushed in 04.
Nothing like pissing off a couple hundred thousand vets, and making a million or so members of the Armed Forces mad by either slandering them," A la Kerry" or dis enfranchising them like Gore did in Florida.
Loser. ;D ;D ;D
We win. You lose.

[UncleVinny]

Ohhhh, I can just FEEL the LOVE and Christian Values.

Mmmm, warm and fuzzy!

Kinda like that warm glow I get when I repeat my mantra. . .

"President Kerry was sworn in today . . ."
Oh, what a feeling.

Serioiusly now folks, I though we had some intellect here. All I see is emotional outbursts based on flimsy research. As with most unthinking people, the critics here make their mind up first who they like, the find the 'facts' to support their position. Anyone with an unbiased mindset would be open to the real facts of the situation:
That Bush rushed into war.
That oil and Arab land was at the heart of the motivation.
That the big war machine corporations, especially Halliburton, benfit from this "non-winable" (Bush quote) war on terrorism.

Well if you want the novel, 1984, to come true, keep deceiving yourself.

These colors don't run the world!

[scummybear]

If you want intellectual content in reply, try posting something with intellect. There isn't a shred of truth or evidence to anything you said. You seemed to have ignored the question about the otrocities commited by Hussein. TNRighty posted some factual quotes made by some of yout leftist brethren prior to the war. You totally ignored that. Where is the substance in your whining? And where is your research? Where is your evidence?

The funniest part of it is that you totally repeated the same thing you originally posted ( the war is about "oil "and "land" delusion), and have the nerve to demand some intelligent debate. If you want any further responses, I recommend that you bring something other than the same ole' b.s. Otherwise, expect the same.

[scummybear]

"President Kerry was sworn in today . . ."
Oh, what a feeling.

November is not going to be a good month for you. Better stock up on your Prozac now.

[MO]

That's true. Most experts contend that Saddam was intolerant of terrorists, as they interfered with his dictatorial agends.

You must get your information from Baghdad Bob. Although we don't have direct evidence linking SoDamn Insane to 9-11, we have good evidence he had some involvement in the first WTC bombing. We also know he harbored terrorists and funded palestinian terrorism. That's all detailed in the 9-11 report. But like a good little liberal, I'm sure you didn't read it and are just flying on what you know from the DNC talking points.

[scummybear]

Nothing like a little disenfranchisement in Florida to get the ghetto brothers out to the polls. So don't be too mean, I might get one to marry your sister

No matter the context, you're not going to win points with the moderator with this one.

[BOLO]

Kinda like that warm glow I get when I repeat my mantra. . .
"President Kerry was sworn in today . . ."
Oh, what a feeling.
Serioiusly now folks, I though we had some intellect here. All I see is emotional outbursts based on flimsy research. As with most unthinking people, the critics here make their mind up first who they like, the find the 'facts' to support their position. Anyone with an unbiased mindset would be open to the real facts of the situation:
That Bush rushed into war.
That oil and Arab land was at the heart of the motivation.
That the big war machine corporations, especially Halliburton, benfit from this "non-winable" (Bush quote) war on terrorism.
Well if you want the novel, 1984, to come true, keep deceiving yourself.
These colors don't run the world!

Whut we have here is not a failure to communicate, it is an inability to communicate.
Uncle vinny has used up his stock of words. He is now devoid of anything further to say.
Lets see now...his mantra.

"President Kerry was sworn in today .

A misquote obviously. He meant..Wannabe President John Kerry was sworn at today.

Serioiusly now folks, I though we had some intellect here.

Plenty of intellect here none there..
(This is fun. He makes it too easy.)

Anyone with an unbiased mindset would be open to the real facts of the situation:

Where, oh wise one, does it say we have to be unbiased?
Are you trying to insinuate you are unbiased. HORSE HOCKEY you hypocrite

non-winable" (Bush quote)

A lie. He did not say that. He said it was not winnable in the conventional sense where we will sit down at a Peace Treaty Table.
You jerk. if you can't quote accurately don't quote at all. You like all Liberals attempt to distort or lie using excerpts. The reason we are intelligent is because we can see through, and past jerks like you.

These COLORS don't Run But they certainly DO run the World.
Don't like it? Go to Pluto. We have no plans for it right now. We do intend to go to Mars. You can't go. We don't want you there. ;D

Have one on me. Not you Vinny.
Mo, Scummybear, and TN Righty.

[TNRighty]

"Ghetto brothers"? If anyone else in here had said that, youd've gone Jesse Jackson up in here. That comment leads me to believe that you think blacks are nothing but pawns in your party's political strategy. We ask all Americans, black, white, or candy-striped, to take responsibility for their own lives. Your party seeks only to enslave them to governmental policies like affirmative action. These policies perpetuate racism and seek only to destroy the individual identity and opportunity of blacks by making them see only the color of their skin, not the promise of their individuality. Blacks don't need government to be successful, but as long as you can convince them to believe that, you've got votes. The only way for Dems to win the black vote is to convince them that they can't make their way in this country on their own, that they need government help. I suspect you like it that way. You'd rather have black votes than see blacks prosper.

Anyways, I know this isn't what this thread was about, but I got really pissed when I read what this imbecile wrote.