Al-Quaeda in Iraq.

[forest_ranger254]

Love him or loath him, Rush Limbaugh brought up a good point the other day about this whole Al-Zarqawi deal. According to most sources, Zarqawi was part of Al-Quaeda. Well, the almost unanimous argument by democrats thus far has been that Al-Quaeda was not connected to Iraq, and thus Iraq is not connected to 9/11. Well, since Zarqawi was killed in Iraq, the democrats have completely flipped their argument. They now are saying that Zarqawi was in Iraq BEFORE 2002. This means that he was there, as a figurehead of Al-Quaeda, in northern Iraq, and that Bush knew it. If that isn't enough reason to go to Iraq, then I don't know what is. I want to understand why the democrats have completely destroyed their previous argument to make Bush look bad. This is making no sense.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Liberal Media as a whole are LIARS.
2. They will twist any Story to slant it against the Republicans, then flip flop on it just like JF Kerry will do on a dime.
3. Both the Liberal Media and the Democrats have to Die Off because of their lack of dignity.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

Northern Iraq was controlled by Kurds, saddam had no authority there. A few terrorist groups are known to have existed there because, again, they didn't haven't to deal with Saddam. Saddam and the islamic extremists were enemies. In fact, terrorists used the weakness of the kudish authorities (either they didn't tackle them or the terrorist outgunned them) and the protection of the u.s. and british controlled no fly zone to stay out of saddams reach.

Now if you want to show that he entered saddam controlled Iraq, and the government was aware of who he was and his presence in their territory, then rush may have a point. But, alas, rush is as wrong as usual.

[forest_ranger254]

Northern Iraq was controlled by Kurds, saddam had no authority there. A few terrorist groups are known to have existed there because, again, they didn't haven't to deal with Saddam. Saddam and the islamic extremists were enemies. In fact, terrorists used the weakness of the kudish authorities (either they didn't tackle them or the terrorist outgunned them) and the protection of the u.s. and british controlled no fly zone to stay out of saddams reach.

Now if you want to show that he entered saddam controlled Iraq, and the government was aware of who he was and his presence in their territory, then rush may have a point. But, alas, rush is as wrong as usual.




So, were they in Iraq or not? Republicans have pointed to Northern Iraq as their home for years, and every time liberals would say "Oh, there aren't any Al-Quaeda there." I have seen for two years how liberals would say this over and over again on Volconvo.com. Either they lied, or they were proven wrong now. But liberals have said that Bush KNEW ABOUT IT IN 2002!!!! So how could they have NOT known about it until now. That leaves only one possibility. Liberals LIED.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Calm down dittohead. Liberals have long argued that no ties existed between saddam and al-qaeda. And that, on top of this, no ties existed between saddam and 9-11. If you show that terrorists existed in a u.s. patrolled area where saddam had no authority at all, you do nothing to damage that argument. We didn't invade the Kurdish territories due to terrorism and wmd's, we invaded Iraq, controlled by Saddam, due to terrorism and WMD's.

[forest_ranger254]

Calm down dittohead. Liberals have long argued that no ties existed between saddam and al-qaeda. And that, on top of this, no ties existed between saddam and 9-11. If you show that terrorists existed in a u.s. patrolled area where saddam had no authority at all, you do nothing to damage that argument. We didn't invade the Kurdish territories due to terrorism and wmd's, we invaded Iraq, controlled by Saddam, due to terrorism and WMD's.


And the fact that some of those Kurds were in Baghdad at the start of the occupation? or maybe the fact that some of those in Suddam's highest ranks were Kurds? How do you slip that under the rug? Also, there is a lot more to northern Iraq than those areas. The most plausible theory is that he was not in those areas, otherwise, the part that includes purported plans to use Cruise missiles to kill him would not fit in. If he was in American territory, Bush would only have to send a raiding team to raid the house. However, the Liberal ideas include a plan to hit him with missiles, which effectively pushes his area outside of those areas and into Suddam's jurisdiction.
Another funny thing about the Liberal media is the fact that Liberals don't like the way Bush offed Zarqawi, claiming that he could have been innocent. It was so funny, that George Soros made a parody about it.

[bobbylien]

Rush is an idiot. I can't stand to listen to him for more than 5 minutes. He is just so wrong on everything.

[forest_ranger254]

Rush is an idiot. I can't stand to listen to him for more than 5 minutes. He is just so wrong on everything.


Considering he at least has the evidence. So far the liberals have nothing. Either Al-Quaeda was in Iraq or they weren't. Rush hasn't changed his story, the liberals have. I can't stand to listen to the liberals. Shoot, I heard a sound clip of how college students treat liberals, and if they are the future of our country, then this country is going to turn against the liberals when they come into play. That's considering that the miked liberal could not be heard over the audience telling her to get out. Face it, the liberal crowd is dying out, leaving behind a conservative basis in its college students.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And the fact that some of those Kurds were in Baghdad at the start of the occupation? or maybe the fact that some of those in Suddam's highest ranks were Kurds? How do you slip that under the rug? Also, there is a lot more to northern Iraq than those areas. The most plausible theory is that he was not in those areas, otherwise, the part that includes purported plans to use Cruise missiles to kill him would not fit in. If he was in American territory, Bush would only have to send a raiding team to raid the house. However, the Liberal ideas include a plan to hit him with missiles, which effectively pushes his area outside of those areas and into Suddam's jurisdiction.

Wait, are you suggesting that saddam was allied with the kurdish areas? Or that there weren't autonomous kurdish areas? Or that america actually occupied the ground in kurdish areas? Your claim is baseless and seems filled with limbaughs half truths, if even.

Another funny thing about the Liberal media is the fact that Liberals don't like the way Bush offed Zarqawi, claiming that he could have been innocent. It was so funny, that George Soros made a parody about it.


No one in the media, and no sane or visible liberal is suggesting such things. If you take any of those talk show hosts as a news programs, whether its limbaugh, o'reilly, franken, rhodes etc. then you're going to have one warped political viewpoint filled with false information.

[forest_ranger254]

Wait, are you suggesting that saddam was allied with the kurdish areas? Or that there weren't autonomous kurdish areas? Or that america actually occupied the ground in kurdish areas? Your claim is baseless and seems filled with limbaughs half truths, if even.

No, I am building off the claim YOU made that the area mentioned was patrolled by Americans. I am claiming that with that patrol, since Bush supposedly knew where he was, if it were in those areas, he would simply send a patrol group out there to take it out.

No one in the media, and no sane or visible liberal is suggesting such things. If you take any of those talk show hosts as a news programs, whether its limbaugh, o'reilly, franken, rhodes etc. then you're going to have one warped political viewpoint filled with false information.


Who said the liberals were sane?

[AlonzoMourning23]

No, I am building off the claim YOU made that the area mentioned was patrolled by Americans. I am claiming that with that patrol, since Bush supposedly knew where he was, if it were in those areas, he would simply send a patrol group out there to take it out.

You take issue with the idea that the americans were one of the forces that patrolled the no fly zone?

And who suggested bush knew he was there or, if any american agency knew he was there, viewed him as different from any other terrorist foot soldier at the time? Either way, lack of action is hardly evidence against my argument.

Who said the liberals were sane?


I'm reminded of the quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Underestimating your opponent is never a good strategy. Liberals are learning that the hard way in regard to abortion rights, and conservatives have only recently realized that in regards to same sex marriage.

[forest_ranger254]

You take issue with the idea that the americans were one of the forces that patrolled the no fly zone?

And who suggested bush knew he was there or, if any american agency knew he was there, viewed him as different from any other terrorist foot soldier at the time? Either way, lack of action is hardly evidence against my argument.

No, I take issue with the flip-flop-flip you have made. WERE WE PATROLLING THOSE AREAS OR NOT? Liberals suggested he knew that he was there. Zarqawi is part of Al-Quaeda. He was in Iraq. Deductive reasoning lead to Al-Quaeda being in Iraq.



I'm reminded of the quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Underestimating your opponent is never a good strategy. Liberals are learning that the hard way in regard to abortion rights, and conservatives have only recently realized that in regards to same sex marriage.


Actually, In Florida, the house voted against it, as did the house in TN, GA, and AL. So far, same sex marriage has failed to gain a foothold in the south. We haven't underestimated the power of stupid people in large groups.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No, I take issue with the flip-flop-flip you have made. WERE WE PATROLLING THOSE AREAS OR NOT? Liberals suggested he knew that he was there. Zarqawi is part of Al-Quaeda. He was in Iraq. Deductive reasoning lead to Al-Quaeda being in Iraq.

Patrolling the no fly zone in planes is different than controlling the area on the ground. Zarqawi was in northern Iraq, a place where saddam had no authority. There's no evidence al qaeda ever existed in saddam controlled Iraq, especially with saddams knowledge. Al Qaeda would have liked nothing better than to take out secular saddam.


Actually, In Florida, the house voted against it, as did the house in TN, GA, and AL. So far, same sex marriage has failed to gain a foothold in the south. We haven't underestimated the power of stupid people in large groups.


You're right, you haven't. You've harnessed it. Or at least bigoted people in large groups. This is an issue that conservative are losing on, just like liberals on losing on abortion because they don't take the threats seriously. Polls have shown steady increases in support for same sex marriage, akin to polls in the 50's and 60's on interracial marriage. I was in toronto when same sex marriage was legalized, I was in boston when it was legalized, I've read multiple studies on same sex marriage, adoption etc. No harm has come to marriage nor children. I can't say the same to denying the rights of marriage to adults and children.

[forest_ranger254]

No, I take issue with the flip-flop-flip you have made. WERE WE PATROLLING THOSE AREAS OR NOT? Liberals suggested he knew that he was there. Zarqawi is part of Al-Quaeda. He was in Iraq. Deductive reasoning lead to Al-Quaeda being in Iraq.

Patrolling the no fly zone in planes is different than controlling the area on the ground. Zarqawi was in northern Iraq, a place where saddam had no authority. There's no evidence al qaeda ever existed in saddam controlled Iraq, especially with saddams knowledge. Al Qaeda would have liked nothing better than to take out secular saddam.


Actually, In Florida, the house voted against it, as did the house in TN, GA, and AL. So far, same sex marriage has failed to gain a foothold in the south. We haven't underestimated the power of stupid people in large groups.


You're right, you haven't. You've harnessed it. Or at least bigoted people in large groups. This is an issue that conservative are losing on, just like liberals on losing on abortion because they don't take the threats seriously. Polls have shown steady increases in support for same sex marriage, akin to polls in the 50's and 60's on interracial marriage. I was in toronto when same sex marriage was legalized, I was in boston when it was legalized, I've read multiple studies on same sex marriage, adoption etc. No harm has come to marriage nor children. I can't say the same to denying the rights of marriage to adults and children.


Well, that would be if we control you. You can't harness that power. The Americans were patrolling the area in armed jets. How hard would it be, since we KNEW where he was, to send a pair of jets to his house and blast it with a couple of Sidewinders? Not very difficult. That is why Zarqawi could not have been in the no-fly zone. We would have blown his sorry butt off the face of the earth.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So, basically, your entire argument that al qaeda was operating in saddam controlled iraq, seemingly with saddam's knowledge, is that we didn't take him out?

Do you remember pre-iraq? Zarqawi wasn't very significant and I haven't heard anyone say we knew his exact whereabouts.

[forest_ranger254]

So, basically, your entire argument that al qaeda was operating in saddam controlled iraq, seemingly with saddam's knowledge, is that we didn't take him out?

Do you remember pre-iraq? Zarqawi wasn't very significant and I haven't heard anyone say we knew his exact whereabouts.


The basics of the liberal story:
Zarqawi was in Iraq
Bush knew where he was
There were three plans drawn up to strike him with CRUISE Missiles
These plans never fully went through.

Questions: If he was in air patrolled regions, why pay a large amount of money on CRUISE Missiles when you can pay a couple thousand dollars on a few sidewinders on a jet? It seems a lot cheaper to have the jets blow him up on their way there than risk them finding out a cruise missile is heading for their area and vacating before the missile reaches its target. Then you need to hunt him all over again. The chance of failure with the jets which routinely fly over the area just blasting the hell out of him.

I get my idea of the liberal arguments from both Rush and the mostly liberal website www.volconvo.com.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The basics of the liberal story:
Zarqawi was in Iraq
Bush knew where he was
There were three plans drawn up to strike him with CRUISE Missiles
These plans never fully went through.

Questions: If he was in air patrolled regions, why pay a large amount of money on CRUISE Missiles when you can pay a couple thousand dollars on a few sidewinders on a jet? It seems a lot cheaper to have the jets blow him up on their way there than risk them finding out a cruise missile is heading for their area and vacating before the missile reaches its target. Then you need to hunt him all over again. The chance of failure with the jets which routinely fly over the area just blasting the hell out of him.

I get my idea of the liberal arguments from both Rush and the mostly liberal website www.volconvo.com.


Everything I said previously still stands in answer to the first part.

But the last bit I find intriguing. Would you say that, if I want to learn about conservatives, I should ask Michael Moore? You're saying you learn about liberals through Limbaugh, so I guess Michael Moore is a good source to learn about conservatives?

[forest_ranger254]

The basics of the liberal story:
Zarqawi was in Iraq
Bush knew where he was
There were three plans drawn up to strike him with CRUISE Missiles
These plans never fully went through.

Questions: If he was in air patrolled regions, why pay a large amount of money on CRUISE Missiles when you can pay a couple thousand dollars on a few sidewinders on a jet? It seems a lot cheaper to have the jets blow him up on their way there than risk them finding out a cruise missile is heading for their area and vacating before the missile reaches its target. Then you need to hunt him all over again. The chance of failure with the jets which routinely fly over the area just blasting the hell out of him.

I get my idea of the liberal arguments from both Rush and the mostly liberal website www.volconvo.com.


Everything I said previously still stands in answer to the first part.

But the last bit I find intriguing. Would you say that, if I want to learn about conservatives, I should ask Michael Moore? You're saying you learn about liberals through Limbaugh, so I guess Michael Moore is a good source to learn about conservatives?


Did you misread, I also cite a public online debate site called http://www.volconvo.com. Most of the people on there are left-wing nuts. I don't get my main views of the liberals from Rush, I get the way to drive the left-wingers crazy, as he puts it. However, you also don't have a leg to stand on, since there is no unity within the liberal ranks. Shoot, 42 of your democrats voted against you in the house. Florida is the only state that had any type of unity among liberals, as they split across party lines.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Did you misread, I also cite a public online debate site called http://www.volconvo.com. Most of the people on there are left-wing nuts.

So freerepublic is a good source to understand rational conservative arguments?

However, you also don't have a leg to stand on, since there is no unity within the liberal ranks.

So, for example, if I pick out a random conservative I should therefore continue to present that an a general conservative argument? I don't know nor care what the average joe liberal is doing other than that they show up to vote in support of the things I support. The major arguments presented by those opposed to the Iraq war (either before, only after, or support the war but oppose the reason) are similar (in terms of why Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda), and that would be considered the general liberal argument.

Shoot, 42 of your democrats voted against you in the house.

Democrats don't demand their politicians vote in rank and file, and that shouldn't be expected in a non-parliamentary system.

But that vote was pointless and solely done for political purpose. If they voted against the resolution then they voted that the u.s. would not win the war on terror. If they voted for it then they approved of the policies of the administration. The vote was to gain political ammunition to be used against democrats.

Florida is the only state that had any type of unity among liberals, as they split across party lines.


I like massachusetts, where the republican lieutenant governor publicly opposed the policy of republican governor mitt romney on issues such as allowing religious groups to engage in discrimination.

[forest_ranger254]

So freerepublic is a good source to understand rational conservative arguments?

No, but reading the posts of liberals on a debate give a general idea of what the liberals believe. The argument by them prior to his killing is that he was nowhere in Iraq. Then people like you come along and say that he was in Iraq. See the flip-flop?

So, for example, if I pick out a random conservative I should therefore continue to present that an a general conservative argument? I don't know nor care what the average joe liberal is doing other than that they show up to vote in support of the things I support. The major arguments presented by those opposed to the Iraq war (either before, only after, or support the war but oppose the reason) are similar (in terms of why Iraq was not connected to Al Qaeda), and that would be considered the general liberal argument.

No, I look at a society of liberals. You do know that I am a member of the website and am able to read their posts.

Democrats don't demand their politicians vote in rank and file, and that shouldn't be expected in a non-parliamentary system.

But that vote was pointless and solely done for political purpose. If they voted against the resolution then they voted that the u.s. would not win the war on terror. If they voted for it then they approved of the policies of the administration. The vote was to gain political ammunition to be used against democrats.

I knew that democrats were egotistic, but not that they were ego-consumed. The bill was written up by John Kerry



I like massachusetts, where the republican lieutenant governor publicly opposed the policy of republican governor mitt romney on issues such as allowing religious groups to engage in discrimination.


My church doesn't engage in discrimination.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No, but reading the posts of liberals on a debate give a general idea of what the liberals believe. The argument by them prior to his killing is that he was nowhere in Iraq. Then people like you come along and say that he was in Iraq. See the flip-flop?

It gives no better understanding of normal liberal thinking than freerepublic gives of normal conservative thinking. One is no more or less accurate than the other.

And I've seen conservatives, even here, call for wiping out Iran with nukes. Would it be fair to argue that that is a general opinion of conservatives?

Nowhere in saddam controlled Iraq. Where were attacking saddam, not kurdish autonomous areas. The link was to Saddam, Saddam was president of Iraq. The kurdish areas were technically Iraq but protected by the no fly zones and he had no control there.


No, I look at a society of liberals. You do know that I am a member of the website and am able to read their posts.

Society being liberal or conservative is relative to your beliefs.

I knew that democrats were egotistic, but not that they were ego-consumed. The bill was written up by John Kerry

No, kerry's bill was defeated 93-6. It was an entirely different bill than the one you brought up.



My church doesn't engage in discrimination.


Remember that the next time a homosexual or woman wants to be the reverand at your church.

Though the case in MA was because discrimination, as defined by state laws, on issues such as adoption is prohibited by the state constitution. State laws define discrimination based on sexual orientation as illegal. The lieutenant governor and the overwhelming majority of the state congress balked at passing legislation to allow Romney's legislation that sought to give religious organizations the right to violate the part about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

[forest_ranger254]

It gives no better understanding of normal liberal thinking than freerepublic gives of normal conservative thinking. One is no more or less accurate than the other.

And I've seen conservatives, even here, call for wiping out Iran with nukes. Would it be fair to argue that that is a general opinion of conservatives?

Nowhere in saddam controlled Iraq. Where were attacking saddam, not kurdish autonomous areas. The link was to Saddam, Saddam was president of Iraq. The kurdish areas were technically Iraq but protected by the no fly zones and he had no control there.

Look, I have told you what liberals are saying. the liberals, as a whole, said that Al-Quaeda was not in Iraq. The liberals now, as a whole again, say he had been in Iraq for years. That is what real liberals are saying on their section of the website. Considering I take a pool of some 500 people at the least, That is a reliable study. It is called a single blind study. They don't know that they are being studied.

Society being liberal or conservative is relative to your beliefs.

No, that is according to their beliefs. They claim liberalism.

No, kerry's bill was defeated 93-6. It was an entirely different bill than the one you brought up.

Kerry drew it up, then a republican, sick and tired of the debating, took the bill, scratched Kerry's name off of it, and put it to vote. That is the only reason it got voted on in the first place.

Remember that the next time a homosexual or woman wants to be the reverand at your church.

Though the case in MA was because discrimination, as defined by state laws, on issues such as adoption is prohibited by the state constitution. State laws define discrimination based on sexual orientation as illegal. The lieutenant governor and the overwhelming majority of the state congress balked at passing legislation to allow Romney's legislation that sought to give religious organizations the right to violate the part about discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.


And forcing us to disobey the Bible is discrimination against us for religious reasons is also illegal. The Bible very clearly says that an elder must be the "husband of one WIFE." The church would not vote the guy on in the first place. A pastor must be voted in by a majority vote. That is hard enough to do without the direct disobedience of the Bible that homosexuality (a lifestyle and not a biological mistake) is. I know plenty of men that have had no attraction for women that aren't gay.

[bobbylien]

And forcing us to disobey the Bible is discrimination against us for religious reasons is also illegal.

So if some religious group out there decided that they had to kill everyone not of their religion, it would be illegal to stop them? Where do you draw the line? If a religion forces people to do something bad, they shouldnt be able to use our religious freedom laws to justify it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Look, I have told you what liberals are saying. the liberals, as a whole, said that Al-Quaeda was not in Iraq. The liberals now, as a whole again, say he had been in Iraq for years.

What is so hard to understand about saddam controlled Iraq? The target of the war had nothing to do with al qaeda. We did not attack Iraq to take out the kurds and areas they controlled, we did it to take out Saddam and the areas he controlled. We like the kurds. And that's where zarqawi was, without cooperation for the kurds or saddam.

That is what real liberals are saying on their section of the website. Considering I take a pool of some 500 people at the least, That is a reliable study. It is called a single blind study. They don't know that they are being studied.

No it's not. It's not a random sample. You take people who choose to go to a certain liberal political website, who are most likely high school/college age or a little older (considering the make up of most political forums), and whatever other factors contribute to people posting there. Then you take your biased perspective and that's another issue. If you tried to present that as a reliable sociological study you'd be laughed at.



Kerry drew it up, then a republican, sick and tired of the debating, took the bill, scratched Kerry's name off of it, and put it to vote. That is the only reason it got voted on in the first place.

So what? You tried to say kerry authored the one that called for people to either vote that the u.s. would not win the war on terror, or to support the administrations policies. That was completely wrong.


And forcing us to disobey the Bible is discrimination against us for religious reasons is also illegal. The Bible very clearly says that an elder must be the "husband of one WIFE." The church would not vote the guy on in the first place. A pastor must be voted in by a majority vote. That is hard enough to do without the direct disobedience of the Bible that homosexuality (a lifestyle and not a biological mistake) is. I know plenty of men that have had no attraction for women that aren't gay.


I'd be very suprised if you knew multiple men who had no interest in women and weren't gay, you probably just don't know it. It's rare enough to know one with no sexual interests.

Homosexuality has no one reason, but it is a lifestyle no more or less than heterosexuality is, and no more a "biological mistake" than having red hair.

Either way, whatever the reason, it's still discrimination. Agree or not with the decision, it's discrimination. The policy discriminates against women and homosexuals. That's not a moral opinion, that's what it is. But in MA you need to conform to certain state laws to run an adoption agency. Following discrimination laws is one of them.

[forest_ranger254]

What is so hard to understand about saddam controlled Iraq? The target of the war had nothing to do with al qaeda. We did not attack Iraq to take out the kurds and areas they controlled, we did it to take out Saddam and the areas he controlled. We like the kurds. And that's where zarqawi was, without cooperation for the kurds or saddam.

Then tell me why the democrats lie.

No it's not. It's not a random sample. You take people who choose to go to a certain liberal political website, who are most likely high school/college age or a little older (considering the make up of most political forums), and whatever other factors contribute to people posting there. Then you take your biased perspective and that's another issue. If you tried to present that as a reliable sociological study you'd be laughed at.

Considering the fact that most of the people there that I have debated with were older than my father. That doesn't work. I debated with high-schoolers all the way up to retirees.

So what? You tried to say kerry authored the one that called for people to either vote that the u.s. would not win the war on terror, or to support the administrations policies. That was completely wrong.

Sorry, it was a vote on whether or not to put a deadline on the troops remaining in Iraq. Not on whether we could win the war. It has never been a question in my mind. Liberals go around whining that we are losing so many American soldiers. Did you know that it is safer to be a soldier in Iraq than to be a person living in America. there have been more murders in one year, per capita, than the three years in Iraq. It is safer to be in uniform, in Iraq, than it is to be in your own house. This is a record for the least casualties in ANY war. Shoot, there were more deaths in D-Day than in this war.

I'd be very suprised if you knew multiple men who had no interest in women and weren't gay, you probably just don't know it. It's rare enough to know one with no sexual interests.

Homosexuality has no one reason, but it is a lifestyle no more or less than heterosexuality is, and no more a "biological mistake" than having red hair.

Either way, whatever the reason, it's still discrimination. Agree or not with the decision, it's discrimination. The policy discriminates against women and homosexuals. That's not a moral opinion, that's what it is. But in MA you need to conform to certain state laws to run an adoption agency. Following discrimination laws is one of them.


We have a RIGHT to follow our religious beliefs. The Bible has NO tolerance for homosexuality. That makes it a right for us to deny them the pulpit. If you make us have to accept homosexuals, you might as well give up the Bible ban in the schools. Because you will have entire communities either rebelling against the government, or we will just leave. Nice economic destruction.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Then tell me why the democrats lie.

On what issue?

Considering the fact that most of the people there that I have debated with were older than my father. That doesn't work. I debated with high-schoolers all the way up to retirees.

On a liberal internet website.

Sorry, it was a vote on whether or not to put a deadline on the troops remaining in Iraq. Not on whether we could win the war. It has never been a question in my mind.

You brought up the one where 42 democrats voted in favor of the bill backed by republicans, then you tried to say kerry created it and it's the same one where the vote was 93-6.

Liberals go around whining that we are losing so many American soldiers. Did you know that it is safer to be a soldier in Iraq than to be a person living in America. there have been more murders in one year, per capita, than the three years in Iraq. It is safer to be in uniform, in Iraq, than it is to be in your own house. This is a record for the least casualties in ANY war. Shoot, there were more deaths in D-Day than in this war.

No, the figures put together in that case show it had a lower violent death rate than some of americas most violent cities. The casualty rate, PTSD rate, all those things are higher in Iraq. A better comparison of the expected death rate is to take the per capita violent death rate among u.s. soldiers in a place such as south korea and then compare it with those in Iraq. That gives you a much better idea of how many extra are dead.

We have a RIGHT to follow our religious beliefs. The Bible has NO tolerance for homosexuality. That makes it a right for us to deny them the pulpit. If you make us have to accept homosexuals, you might as well give up the Bible ban in the schools. Because you will have entire communities either rebelling against the government,

You wouldn't get an armed rebellion over that. But yes you do have a right to do that. You can do a lot of things, including holding nazi rallies and burning crosses (not comparing you to them, just making a point). But you can't always do those things when you leave your church and enter into organizations and the public field. If you want to run a restaurant then you have to play by the rules of the government in regards to sanitation, even if you have a reason not to (such as bakeries having to put bread in bags even though it doesn't taste as good). Same with many other organizations, like adoption agencies.

or we will just leave. Nice economic destruction.


So your saying that the far right will leave the country and allow liberals to dominate the most powerful nation in the world? Is that supposed to be a threat?

Though liberal areas, like the northeast and west coast, are the most powerful economic centers.

[forest_ranger254]

you might want to edit that post.