Which post did I call democrats traitors? Please post a specific link to that post. Or admit you are lying. Which conclusions are you referring to? "Alleged" This was not a topic I addressed. What I did point out, and apparently you did not have the ability to note, is that Clinton (as President) did meet with Arafat as part of his official presidential duties and that is not treason. You are aware Clinton was a democrat? What is the point of your argument. I noted it was NOT treason, yet you appear to want to portray something along the same lines as treason. Perhaps you were not aware Clinton was a democrat? To this day, I've never seen or read anything about Clinton that could be claimed as treasonous. While I disagree with many of his views and what he did while in office, unless you have something concrete, I would defend him (a Democrat) from any charges of treason based upon what I know of his tenure. I believe, up until recently, the US was still giving aid to palestinians. It is not uncommon for the US, in it's good graces, to aid countries that are otherwise hostile towards us. I'd rather we didn't. Are you wanting me to call Clinton a traitor? It sounds like you are terribly confused here. I've screamed no such thing. In fact, I took great care to note the story was alleged at this point. Further noting it seems to have no traction. It appears you wished I had done something different and have chosen to attack me for doing something I haven't. I have no control over your blind hatred and you inability to read/comprehend.
GTech: Could you please PLEASE please please please link me to this doccumentation? I have had so many people bashing the war that would just shut up and leave me alone on the subject if I had a link to doccumentation that there were WMDs found.
Sure, it was also link on page two, first post, in this thread. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 Here's an image you can use too: I doubt anyone will "leave you alone" about it though. There are any number of posters here that really do not care about facts.
I already posted how and what lead me to think you feel this way just a posts back. If you choose to ignore this then it's your choice and out of my hands. Truth is that that is exactly what you said even though you may not have meant to say this. I sure am but that was not my point, my point was that Clinton's actions went a little further then talking as you mentioned and as i pointed out was actually helping a TERRORIST (PLO) organization. What would now actually be an act of treason? Most Palestinians have a enormous hatred towards the U.S. - I still have a vivid image of Palestinians jumping up and down with joy over the WTC attack . Hmm.... No i am not, i asked you if this would be equal to treason...helping a known terrorist organization with funds and training. Since you where so eagerly jumping on the bandwagon to call Democrats traitors in the wordings you described which i noted for you in a previous post. Look it up if you don't believe me? You took great care the MEETING was alleged but you had no problems to equal this meeting if happend to treason in your used wordings. I read your post and follow up posts with great care and to make the assessment that your used wordings of the alleged meetings by the Democrats is equal to treason was not only done by me but by EarlPearl as well. If you don't want to be misunderstood then practice on your skills to convey the message you actually want to convey.
Incorrect. You couldn't have. Because you are replying to my post which was a reply to your post where you made this claim. If you are going to be dishonest and prove that you have no integrity, I'm not even going to bother with you. Liars are a dime a dozen here. You made this charge against me: This is not true. Either produce the post I made this statement, or retract your statement against me. If you "thought" I made such and simply retract it as an honest mistake, I'll accept that as well, and we can move on. Otherwise, I'll just write you off as another liar here who has no integrity. The choice is yours.
Boy, you are confused aren't you? You said it wasn't a simple question remember? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1887357&postcount=55 That's post number 55 for the record. Which i replied to with this post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1887415&postcount=57 Which for the record is post number 57 Which also holds this statement by me: So i pointed the what and how what made me make my following statement in the same post, number 57: And now comes the post http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1887760&postcount=61 where you ask me: You're asking me but i already pointed this out in post number 57! Which if you can count is before 61 therefor having answered your question! And if you would wan to say but that is not what i meant then practice how to convey your message as i pointed out before. But you have the nerve now even that this order of post sequence isn't true while the FACTS clearly indicate otherwise! Just look at the sequence of the post numbers. I pointed this out to you already. If it so evidently clear that i already pointed this out to you and now you want to accuse ME of not.. and even want to say i am dishonest and have no integrity? It looks like you are the one who is doing the lying/fabricating here and not me! It appears you are the one who has no integrity since if someone is lying about the sequence of events as you have then it's you who places himself in that category. You just wrote YOURSELF off as a liar. Have a nice day!
Okay GTech, I’ve looked over the link you sent to me, and I am grateful for it. However, on the post titled “Dead wrong†linked to in the link you sent me, I saw nothing conclusively proving that there were WMDs in Iraq before the war. There was one lab where WMDs could be made that was created after the war started, there was one person caught in Jordan with WMD he claims came from Iraq, and satellite images saying that equipment that could be used to make WMDs OR legitimate products were removed from various sites before the war began. Now, that’s not to say that this isn’t compelling circumstantial evidence that would be enough for a search warrant here in the US, but that post contained no direct evidence of WMD in Iraq before the war began. The other links pertain to a government official saying that they believe that part of the WMD program was moved to Syria, but shows no direct evidence. If one of my Democrat friends won’t trust Bush’s word that there were WMDs in Iraq, they won’t trust another official that they were moved from Iraq to Syria without the evidence being directly quoted. Another link, has a summary on the second page of the news article of an Iraqi correspondence regarding how to cover up research into prohibited WMD. That, combined with the circumstantial evidence of equipment that can be used legitimately, or illegitimately is the best that seems to have been linked to so far (As I’m going through the links in reverse order). Oh, now it gets good. THANK YOU for this link: At www[dot]frontpagemag[dot]com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13835 there is an article about missile parts, contracts to buy missile guidance systems, laser ring gyroscopes, Uranium originating in Iraq, and more. Now, if I can find a main steam media page that talks about similar issues, that will be a real step. … even beter. www[dot]foxnews[dot]com/story/0,2933,200499,00[dot]html the WMD themselves. Mustard gas, and Nerve toxins. Somewhat degraded yes, but still useable, and still WMDs. True, they were manufactured in or before 1991, but they are still WMD Sadam was hanging onto, and from a main stream news source.
Yes, I'm confused at your stupidity. You make an accusation that is false and a lie and when asked to back it up, you point out where I specifically describe "what is NOT treason." You don't have all the marbles in your chinese checkers set, that's for sure. Did you pay for your education? You ought to get a refund.
Yes, yes, I know. Just as CNN is rumored to be biased liberally. I may look for more links on the same topic from CNN. If I get a liberal article that says the same thing, it may go a bit further with my Dem friends.
1. Your opening post had a insinuation towards treason (Because we all know how you feel about Kerry) 2. Your follow up post i noted several times confirms the insinuation The difference you pointed out is that secret party meetings at undisclosed locations is treason according to your philosophy and.... normal diplomatic meetings between heads of state on disclosed locations would not be treason. Again reinforced by the first sentence in the paragraph below the part that is quoted above by me. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1887415&postcount=57 That other issue would be treason, there is no other possibility for interpretation. Choose your words carefully if this is not what you meant. 3. You then proceed to call me a liar and dishonest while you have digg your own hole in the process by doing so. As you have proven to the rest of us that your the one who is lacking integrity and try to lie your way out. If you want to get mad then get mad at yourself. With that absurd big font thing you have going on it almost looks you're having a hart attack or something. Seriously, don't get so worked up.
Damn. GTech is getting his ass pwned in this thread. Even resorting to MASSIVE BOLD AND ITALLIC TEXT LMAO.
Oh trust me, I'm sure GTech will tell you they are. That is in a couple hours after he puts together a response to Edz's post
Get ready for all the links he includes that dont actually add anything to his point. Its best when he links back to one of his own posts.