# Outrage!!



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2005)

I knew I shouldn't have gotten into this...  

The quote I posted struck me as the type of thing you'd read in an anarchists handbook. It's vague, and open ended. You can't argue that.
Jefferson's quote is specific.




> Don't bother questioning me again. It's obvious you are the one who has forgotten what it means to be a patriot, rather than a mindless subject.


I'm extremely patriotic, but not towards your country. I'm Canadian....and I never accused you of forgetting what it means to be a patriot, so lets calm down ok?

Lets not start name calling. (mindless subject) I didn't call you any names, nor did I pass judgement on you. I respect your views, although they are different from my own. I try my best to gather news from several sources and make my decisions based on which sources I believe to be the least biased. I don't believe the sites you are constantly linking to are unbiased.


What do you know about CIA training? Where have you obtained this information?


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Teetorbilt said:


> You should both watch the 'History' channel. None of this is squat in casualties. The press just has to have something to do.
> 
> If either one of you had an international outlook, you would understand that this is a very complex mission involving most countries in the western hemisphere directly and has worldwide consequences indirectly. I suggest that you look outside the 'USA' box. We are now part of a global entity.


I would love to hear you elaborate on this Teetor. I have my own theories on the matter, but they are still in the beginning stages and could probably be torn apart far too easily.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Kevin said:


> This picture pisses me off. That poor kid is being forced into political activism by his ignorant parents. (Left or right I would have said the same thing).
> No child should be forced to participate in politics of any sort.


Kevin,

Nice to see someone with some 'sanity' enter into the conversation, - - the picture you 'show' is exactly one of the many reasons WHY I refuse to partake in these left wing fanatical websites they both are 'prisoner' to.

Doesn't matter how much 'lying and conniving' you 'expose' out of these lunatics, - - there are those that will continue to believe them.

I'm sure there are also 'right-wing' radical, fanatical, lyin'-a$$ed web-sites out there, too, - - but I wouldn't know, - - because the DIFFERENCE between me and 'Frick-and-Frack' here is, - - I refuse to partake in THEM either.

These 'closet liberals' want to go on the attack with you the minute you even enter the conversation because they don't want any voices or views 'heard' but their own.

Shame you would even have to argue some 'civility', - - but you see, - - they're so 'blinded' by their rage and their hatred of George Bush, - - that it just takes 'one-wrong-word' for YOU to become their enemy too.

Their philosophy seems to be, - - "If you're not FOR us, you're AGAINST us".

Ironic, huh??


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Humble Abode said:


> Anyway I have to agree with Kevin but for different reasons. Tom R isn't going to read that article. He's going to read that quote and dismiss it as 'liberal,conspiricy, clap-trap, blah blah blah' and then quote Bill O'rielly....


 :Thumbs:


----------



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2005)

I just don't understand how posting a link to a whacko left wing website _(show me a whacko right wing website and I'll call it just that)_ proves the point that the death toll in Iraq is what they claim.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Don't know the 'exact' number, - - but it's somewhere between 950 and 1000, - - the 9/11 death toll, if I remember correctly was somethin' like 2,745. Following any 'links' to their sites would be for 'entertainment' purposes only.

Or more realistically, - - 'morbid' fascination.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

My apologies, - - just looked it up, - - 'CNN', - - death toll hit 1,002 last month (September 8th), - - guess I'm a little behind on the News, - - I don't know the exact count as of today.

Sure ain't no damn 10,000. 

P.S. Also looked up the official 'death toll' for 9/11. Again, I stand corrected, - - I said (from memory) 2,745, - - the 'exact' number is actually 2,752


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Tom R said:


> My apologies, - - just looked it up, - - 'CNN', - - death toll hit 1,002 last month (September 8th), - - guess I'm a little behind on the News, - - I don't know the exact count as of today.
> 
> Sure ain't no damn 10,000.
> 
> P.S. Also looked up the official 'death toll' for 9/11. Again, I stand corrected, - - I said (from memory) 2,745, - - the 'exact' number is actually 2,752





CNN said:


> There have been 2,136 coalition troop deaths, 1,942 Americans, 96 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of October 4, 2005. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. At least 14,362 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does not report the number of non-hostile wounded. Get a historical look at U.S. war casualties and view casualties in the war in Afghanistan.


Time to recycle those old newspapers Tom


----------



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2005)

This from www.antiwar.com :


```
American Military Casualties in Iraq

American Deaths	 	
Since war began (3/19/03):	1944
```


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Humble Abode said:


> Time to recycle those old newspapers Tom


(J)umble,

I 'clearly' stated AMERICAN deaths (post # 67), - - sorry your RAGE is so BLINDING!!

Sincerely hope you GET WELL soon!!


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Tom R said:


> (J)umble,
> 
> I 'clearly' stated AMERICAN deaths (post # 67), - - sorry your RAGE is so BLINDING!!
> 
> Sincerely hope you GET WELL soon!!


I know what you stated. I am not the least bit 'raged' more... ammused.

I'm not attacking you just correcting you. 

You said American deaths = 1,002
When in fact they are 1,942.


----------



## AAPaint (Apr 18, 2005)

Sorry Kevin, you just got caught up in the middle. I respect the fact that you have the intelligence to question, well, anything. That takes guts in today's world. 

As far as the sites I link to. It wouldn't matter if it was the white house website the info was on, people would still call it "fanatical (pick your wing) websites". The question is why do people look at it as biased one way or the other instead of asking why the numbers don't add up. Regardless what site it is, I still don't hear any debating over the facts presented........because there is NO debating it. 

The point is this. Do you REALLY think ONLY less than 2,000 of our soldiers are dead after 4 years of war? Seriously, ponder that for a moment. There are 100,000 Iraqi civillians dead...not Iraq soldiers, civillians. Are we supposed to believe we've killed 100K and only lost 2K? 

What did you think I was going to do, link to CNN? Hahaha! 

TomR - Rhetoric, rhetoric, drivel, blah....who cares. State facts or just give up. Period. You won't do it though because you can't. All you can do is say it's "fanatics" "liberals" "democrats" "right wing" etc. 

How do you stand up for your boy O'Rielly calling for the assassination of the Syrian leader? You can't. O'Rielly now has as much credibility as Billy Graham calling for the assassination of Chavez. I guess if the US doesn't like someone assassination is OKIE DOKIE, eh? It's not only a war crime, but goes against everything this country was founded upon. Go ahead, tell me the constitution says assassination is ok....I'm waiting. 

OH yeah! The CIA issue. Lemme touch on that. What do I know about CIA training. I'll tell you one FACT I know. They trained and supplied Al-Quaeda!!! Argue that one.......I know a few things about the CIA: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8702/psych-op.html
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/08/cias-internet-fakes.html

Now, I know you'll shrug it off, that's what you're paid to do! Don't you realise I allready know I'm supposed to be the nutcase. That's the whole goal right? Make me look silly. GOOD! Lemme strap into my office chair and we'll play round after round of this little propoganda game. Instantly discredit me because of the sites I link to? Pff! 

DEBATE WITH FACT if you wish to discredit me. Go ahead, I dare you.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Oop, - - checked again (this time a little slower), - - you're right, that was 2004. 

I'm man enough to admit a mistake. Thanks for the correction.

Still does not surpass 2752 CIVILIAN deaths on OUR soil, - - yet I never hear you guys even MENTION that.

Do 'certain' deaths QUALIFY more than others, - - like those you can blame on George Bush, - - did UBL or Saddam Hussein ever do any wrong in your book??


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Tom R said:


> Still does not surpass 2752 CIVILIAN deaths on OUR soil, - - yet I never hear you guys even MENTION that.


I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that the war in Iraq was waged under a false premise is now undeniable to most Americans. The rest of the world knows it too.


Tom R said:


> Do 'certain' deaths QUALIFY more than others, - - like those you can blame on George Bush, - - did UBL or Saddam Hussein ever do any wrong in your book??


UBL?

I know Hussein was a monster. He was a war monger and he killed the people of his own country. 

He was also absolutely powerless when we attacked him this time. Goarge Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton saw to that. After the first war in Iraq ended we continued to bomb government buildings, including state run utilities, industries, and military instalations, for the rest of Bush's term and the entire eight years Clinton was in office.

Saddam Hussein was, as a military threat, harmless as a kitten. I don't think you can argue that he was a threat to anyone when we attacked Iraq. The evidence, or lack thereof, is everywhere.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

AAPaint said:


> TomR - Rhetoric, rhetoric, drivel, blah....who cares. State facts or just give up. Period. You won't do it though because you can't. All you can do is say it's "fanatics" "liberals" "democrats" "right wing" etc.
> 
> How do you stand up for your boy O'Rielly calling for the assassination of the Syrian leader? You can't. O'Rielly now has as much credibility as Billy Graham calling for the assassination of Chavez. I guess if the US doesn't like someone assassination is OKIE DOKIE, eh? It's not only a war crime, but goes against everything this country was founded upon. Go ahead, tell me the constitution says assassination is ok....I'm waiting.


AA, 

I musta 'missed' O'Reilly that night, - - it sounds like you and Humble actually watch him more than I do, - - that's a start, anyway.

Let's get this straight though, - - O'Reilly don't pay my bills, - - though I do agree with him probly' about 95% of the time.

Here's what I do know, - - there have been many instances where your type of 'links' have out-and-out LIED about what O'Reilly said or didn't say, - - not saying that's necessarily the case this time, - - I really don't know.

Let's face it, - - a few months ago I asked Humble to show me an instance where O'Reilly got caught lying, - - and he goes and 'links' me to a web-site called "O'Reilly Sucks.com", - - I mean, - - are you guys for 'real', or what??

Then you want to claim I refuse to give your 'links' a fair chance?? Sheesh!!  

As far as having some Syrian leader assassinated, - - Whoever it is, I'll buy the gun. Time to get SERIOUS.

CIA?? - - Not interested in going off on any other 'tangents'.


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Tom R said:


> Let's face it, - - a few months ago I asked Humble to show me an instance where O'Reilly got caught lying, - - and he goes and 'links' me to a web-site called "O'Reilly Sucks.com", - - I mean, - - are you guys for 'real', or what??


LOL I knew you or somebody would bring that up...

I am sure you don't trust Air America Radio either so I don't know why I am bother to say this, but Al Franken has repeatedly exposed O'Reilly as a liar. 

I don't know why i bother but...
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/bi/bill_oreilly_(commentator)2.htm

Halfway down that page it speaks to the accusations rendered by Franken in his book _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them_.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2005)

AAPaint said:


> DEBATE WITH FACT if you wish to discredit me. Go ahead, I dare you.


I'll do that when you start proving your beliefs/claims as facts.

Neither "side" has access to information the "other side" does not.



My only point is that the sites you link to are worthless. They are making claims they just can't back up....and again, when someone starts posting fanatical right wing sites I'll shoot those ones down too.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 26, 2005)

AAPaint said:


> DEBATE WITH FACT if you wish to discredit me. Go ahead, I dare you.


...and why is it up to me to prove that you are wrong? Shouldn't you be providing proof to support your points instead of saying "well if you think my whacky lefty websites are wrong, then prove it!"

I don't get it.


----------



## Tom R (Jun 1, 2004)

Humble, 

I know deep down you're a good guy and all, - - but c'mon, - - you gotta draw the damn line somewhere, - - Al 'Frikkin' Franken??

Here's the 'stark' reality, - - guys like Al Franken have an open invitation to come on the O'R show anytime and 'debate' their point of view. They never do, - - don't you think there's a reason for that??

The O'R Factor has basically 'taken over' Talk-News, - - don't you at least think there's a reason for that??


----------



## Humble Abode (Mar 19, 2005)

Tom R said:


> Humble,
> 
> I know deep down you're a good guy and all, - - but c'mon, - - you gotta draw the damn line somewhere, - - Al 'Frikkin' Franken??
> 
> Here's the 'stark' reality, - - guys like Al Franken have an open invitation to come on the O'R show anytime and 'debate' their point of view. They never do, - - don't you think there's a reason for that??


I don't beleive that for a minute. No matter what O'Reilly says on his show.


Tom R said:


> The O'R Factor has basically 'taken over' Talk-News, - - don't you at least think there's a reason for that??


A reason... hmm... a lot of people are easily dupped? 

Seriously I don't respect Franken, but I have read his claims about O'Reilly. I have also seen his stammering rebuttle on his and other shows. Al Franken forced O'Reilly to backtrack and retract outright lies, thats fact.

They are both lying spin miesters...

This is what I beleive, Bill O'Reilly is a propagantist for the party that's in power right now. He distorts facts to make them fit his purposes, and further his veiws and agenda.

And if you don't think he has an agenda you're mistaken.


----------

