Your assignment

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings.

Wrong. 9/11 was facilitated by Clinton indifference, and Bush inherited his broken system of intelligence.

Innocent of being involved in 9/11? No, was Hussein a threat to U.S national security just before we attacked in 2003.

Well, at least you admitted your obsession with me. No, I admitted that you're obsessed with this forum, and with karma points. I've made my point and have moved on. Have you?

ArmyStrong. Imagine that. A coward like you having that as a moniker. Was "BushBrownNose" not available? HA, HA, HA! I'm sorry, I missed the part about you serving our country. Which branch of the armed forces were you in, Pink Stain?

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying in Sunday School that Joseph Smith had thirty some odd wives, including numerous ones that were already married to other men. All they ever told me about was Emma.

Maybe your Ward was different.
Well, that stands to reason -- you never had a testimony of the restored gospel in the first place, so where else could you have turned but to Jerald Tanner and his ranks of apostasy?
Hmmm. Avoiding my statement, Not quite. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and you believe he was a liar -- thus proving my point that you never had the spirit of God testify to you of the restored gospel.

but since you brought up the word testimony, isn't that when you decide something is true based on belief and other people thinking the same thing (it's easier to fool a group than an individual) and then stick to it no matter what evidence to the contrary emerges? No, it's sticking to what the spirit of God tells you, despite what obsessed detractors try to tell you.

No wonder you still think Bush has a clue....you have a testimony of his decisions. No wonder you ramble on like a communist buffoon. You still think the vast majority of Islam is harmless, and George Bush is the primary threat to the U.S.

Actually, I'm not the one who perceives George Bush as an equal threat to America, if not the primary threat.
Nor am I, Yes you are. Here, we'll use the rest of your idiot rant below as evidence:

Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper.

I'm seeing lots of anger towards Bush, and zero towards bin-Laden. Why do you suppose that is Weepy?


As far as Islam's crusade, it comes straight from the Qur'an. Here, put your mirror down for a moment and scribble these verses on your Karl Marx stationery.

The Qur'an, Sura 5, verse 82; Surah 8, verse 39; Surah 9, verse 5; Sura 9:29; Qur'an 9:123; 48:29; Hadith, 4633; Hadith Sahih 4366.

When you're ready to discuss these verses, we'll talk more
So, based on your comment above, do you have a "testimony" that all of Islam, not just the radical fringe but the whole religion, is out to get us.

No, I'm just familair with the telling points of the Qur'an. It speaks of converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims. Whether moderate Muslims believe in this or not, the much more dominant -- radical -- side of Islam does.

So you agree Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, and bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan. You sure did not deny it in your little diatribe above, did you?

I know that Iran doesn't have a homicidal maniac like Saddam Hussein at its helm; I know that Iraq has an opportunity to embrace the rules of civilized society, and I know that bin-Laden and his band of murderers, are currently dealing with 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and are not fighting us in our own streets. Those are the facts. Your weepy commentary is irrelevant.
Get some rest Parasite, you're foaming at the maw again

Decaf wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
Decaf wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
Decaf wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
I made the mistake of taking you seriously, Decaf. In the words of your hero, GWB, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me, er." You know how it goes.

Why Eric, you never told me about your conversion to Islam! Why don't you share your story with us?

The uninformed might correlate a person's middle name with a particular faith. Surely Decaf is using something else to divine my supposed conversion?

And here I thought you merely trying to be a smartass. I'm sorry Eric, what is the significance of the new addition to your moniker?

No, Decaf, the apology should be mine. I'll try not to use subtlety without pointing it out.

No need for apology my friend. You're a liberal -- irreverent and ardent defender of Islam. It's expected.

I can understand Decaf's missing the subtle. That takes a certain level of cognizance not usually found in right-wing extremists. But he also pretends to miss the blatant in an effort to make his points. At least he has a level of comfort in his religion. God bless, you, Decaf.

unaffiliated_person wrote:
Seems the democrats lead among the unaffiliated voters:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues
I think people underestimate the voters who do not identify with a party. In Utah County, there are as many unaffiliated voters as there are registered republicans (both of which far outweigh the registered democrats). Although they do tend to vote R in recent times, that many voters who might be disallusioned with the republicans could vote them all out.

I don't have a clue how many "unaffiliated" voters there are in Utah County. I do know, based on the results from the last election, that the straight party votes were more than the "other" voters combined. Therefore, based on your data, it seems you unaffiliated are more affiliated than you make yourself out to be. Either that or you don't vote.

And after two days of fumbling and bumbling, I see Decaf has finally sloooooowly formulated a response to my last post. Let's see how long it takes me to trash it. If past history is any indication, not long.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings.
Wrong.
Really? So your position now is that Bush was not President on 9/11/01? And your position is that he was not specifically warned over a month before that al Qaeda was up to something...something involving hijacked planes?

Here's that article again. Is English too tough a language for you to understand??

President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

NY Times Article

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. He was indeed innocent of that. Even Bush later admitted (after the fact, of course) Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Got proof otherwise? While you are at it, post some proof of those elusive WMD's he supposedly had.
No, was Hussein a threat to U.S national security just before we attacked in 2003.
That comprehension problem of yours is amazing. What has him being a threat to U.S. National Security got to do with him being involved in 9/11? Nothing. He was not involved in 9/11, as even Bush later admitted.

Now, was he an imminent threat to our national security? No. Hell, he did not even have control of his own airspace, for crying out loud. And he certainly had no WMD's, did he? Got proof otherwise? Could he have been a threat down the road sometime? Perhaps, but so could any number of leaders in other countries. Iran and North Korea, for example. Are you advocating preemptive action there as well???

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ArmyStrong. Imagine that. A coward like you having that as a moniker. Was "BushBrownNose" not available?
HA, HA, HA! I'm sorry, I missed the part about you serving our country. Which branch of the armed forces were you in, Pink Stain?
None, but I've never pretended to be, and I don't have a screen name like "ArmyStrong" that implies it like you do. I can see the truth hurt you on that one.

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and you believe he was a liar
Believe as you wish. There is more evidence to suggest the latter than the former, though. Quiz time:

1.How many wives did Joseph Smith have besides Emma?

2. How many wives did he ever acknowledge, in public, having besides Emma, even though he was asked?

Get back to me on those.

-- thus proving my point that you never had the spirit of God testify to you of the restored gospel.
You could not prove a point if it was stuck in your butt.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper.
I'm seeing lots of anger towards Bush, and zero towards bin-Laden. Why do you suppose that is Weepy?
Because I was talking about Bush and not bin Laden, that's why. Hopefully, we'll catch bin Laden and bring him to justice. If we can't catch him, then dropping a bomb on his head will suffice. That does not make Bush's incompetence any better, though. He's still a dimwit.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
So, based on your comment above, do you have a "testimony" that all of Islam, not just the radical fringe but the whole religion, is out to get us?
No, I'm just familair with the telling points of the Qur'an. It speaks of converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims. Whether moderate Muslims believe in this or not, the much more dominant -- radical -- side of Islam does.
Familiar huh? Like hearing it on conservative talk radio? Too funny.

But I digress. You said "As far as Islam's crusade" which certainly implied you had a problem with the whole religion, and based on your comment above, seems you still do. I'm certainly not going to defend Islam itself, nor will I attack it. However, when you talk about them "converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims" you might want to read the Old Testament, bub. Seems to me the Children of Israel did a whole lot of subduing or eliminating of non-Jews, didn't they? Mostly eliminating.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
So you agree Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, and bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan. You sure did not deny it in your little diatribe above, did you?
I know that Iran doesn't have a homicidal maniac like Saddam Hussein at its helm
Good. Then I trust you are not a proponent of Bush's insane invasion overtures.

I know that Iraq has an opportunity to embrace the rules of civilized society
And opportunity that they have had for years, and we still have to have 150,000 troops there (15,000 or so more than when the surge started) to maintain order. I'd say civilization has a ways to go. A long, long, long ways.

and I know that bin-Laden and his band of murderers, are currently dealing with 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and are not fighting us in our own streets. Those are the facts. Your weepy commentary is irrelevant.
And bin Laden and his crew have been getting stronger, which is why Obama suggested we needed more troops there. Imagine that. McCain and Bush now agree, for the most part, but aren't quite sure where to get those troops, being as since they are too scared to pull any more out of Iraq. Gee, I wonder why?

Get some rest Parasite, you're foaming at the maw again.
Aw, isn't that sweet. A "parasite" comment. You are indeed back to your old Dapto86 form. See you again in a couple of days, Slooooooow poke.

Oh, one more thing. Do try to figure out the way to nest quotes. It's not that hard. You posts look like they were prepared by, well, an idiot.

And after two days of fumbling and bumbling, I see Decaf has finally sloooooowly formulated a response to my last post. Let's see how long it takes me to trash it. If past history is any indication, not long.

I've gotta tell ya Hurts, your obsession with this forum is second to none. I do believe that if it were possible, you'd have the forum permanently fused to your consciousness -- a steady stream of 24/7 fixation on anti-Bush/ anti-Mormon rant.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings.
decaf wrote:
Wrong.
Really?Yes. What part of "wrong" are you having trouble with? I've lined out Clintion as the root of the cause, now it's up to you to suck up your pride and live with it. This part of our debate is over, and you lost.

Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. Innocent of being directly involved with 9/11? Probably. But no one can dispute that Hussein did have connections with terrorist organizations prior to the attack. So whether Hussein was involved or not, we both can agree that he wasn't the mastermind behind 9/11. With that in mind, we'll close this nonsensical argument about liberals accusing conservatives of trying to link Iraq with 9/11.

Now, was he an imminent threat to our national security? No. Have you proven, once again, that you still have no idea what the hell you're talking about? Yes. I've already explained why he was an imminent threat in an earlier response to Wilco. Given your incredible devotion to this forum, you should have no problem retrieving that information in a matter of seconds.

Hell, he did not even have control of his own airspace, for crying out loud. Hell, since when do homicidal wackjobs need control of their airspace to plot and commit mass murder?

Could he have been a threat down the road sometime? Perhaps, "Perhaps"? What an idiot ... would've loved to see you try selling that hogwash to Kuwait, and the Kurds. Just how far do you think an unfettered Saddam Hussein would have gone, Peacenik?

but so could any number of leaders in other countries. Iran and North Korea, for example. Are you advocating preemptive action there as well???I'm advocating preemptive action against countries with a history of say, attacking a weaker nation and burning up chunks of their oil fields, for example. Get the picture?

ArmyStrong. Imagine that. A coward like you having that as a moniker. Was "BushBrownNose" not available?
decaf wrote:
HA, HA, HA! I'm sorry, I missed the part about you serving our country. Which branch of the armed forces were you in, Pink Stain?
None, but I've never pretended to be, and I don't have a screen name like "ArmyStrong" that implies it like you do. I can see the truth hurt you on that one.
Actually, I'm a veteran of the Air Force. I just thought "ArmyStrong" would be kind of a catchy moniker.

Now as for you, Pink Stain, your cowardice is evidenced in every single post that drips from your slimey keyboard. You're devoid of any positive ideas or solutions. All you have to offer is a constant barrage of Bush trashing, LDS bashing, vomitous anger. Gets kind of old after 3 or 4 years, don't you think?

decaf wrote:
I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and you believe he was a liar
Believe as you wish. There is more evidence to suggest the latter than the former, though. You cling to the "evidence" provided by researchers who claim Joseph Smith was a liar and a criminal. I'll stick with the gospel truth

Quiz time:
Already answered -- multiple times.

I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had". Given your above comment about evidence suggesting "the latter", it has become clear that you're nothing more than a typical Anti-Mormon -- biased to the extreme, not to be trusted, ever.

decaf wrote:
-- thus proving my point that you never had the spirit of God testify to you of the restored gospel.
You could not prove a point if it was stuck in your butt. aren't you tired of losing Hurts? Please, quit while you're only reasonably behind!

Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper.

Let's see, how much more anti-war drivel must America endure before liberals butt-out and leave national defense to the professionals?

So, based on your comment above, do you have a "testimony" that all of Islam, not just the radical fringe but the whole religion, is out to get us?
decaf wrote:
No, I'm just familair with the telling points of the Qur'an. It speaks of converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims. Whether moderate Muslims believe in this or not, the much more dominant -- radical -- side of Islam does.
Familiar huh? Like hearing it on conservative talk radio? The verses are there my cynical little friend. Perhaps if you spent less time with your heads up Moveon.org, and more time educating yourselves outside this fantasy world you elitist boobs have created, America would have a better chance at combating our enemies.

But I digress. You said "As far as Islam's crusade" which certainly implied you had a problem with the whole religion, and based on your comment above, seems you still do. I'm certainly not going to defend Islam itself,
nor will I attack it. However, when you talk about them "converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims" you might want to read the Old Testament, bub. Seems to me the Children of Israel did a whole lot of subduing or eliminating of non-Jews, didn't they? Mostly eliminating. I have zero problem with Muslims who advocate peace. I do, however, have a problem with Muslims who do nothing to prevent radical jihadists from shedding innocent blood. And regardless of whether peace loving Muslims are aware of it or not, those verses in the Qur'an exist.

Yes, there are instances where God commanded his people to wipe out other civilizations. But no where in the Bible does God command his people to subjugate, subdue or eliminate non-Christians, unless directed by him via his prophets. The Qur'an has none of those safe guards; just an open invitation to any who have an appetite for domination and destruction. This is why God gave us prophets -- to eliminate human error.

decaf wrote:
I know that Iran doesn't have a homicidal maniac like Saddam Hussein at its helm
Good. Then I trust you are not a proponent of Bush's insane invasion overtures. Interesting remark given that you are the one bitching about Iran getting stronger.

decaf wrote:
I know that Iraq has an opportunity to embrace the rules of civilized society
And opportunity that they have had for years, and we still have to have 150,000 troops there (15,000 or so more than when the surge started) to maintain order. I'd say civilization has a ways to go. A long, long, long ways. So what's your point Weepy? Are you saying that Iraq is not to have a civilized society? That they are not to be taught how to play nice with the rest of the civilized world?

decaf wrote:
and I know that bin-Laden and his band of murderers, are currently dealing with 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and are not fighting us in our own streets. Those are the facts. Your weepy commentary is irrelevant.
And bin Laden and his crew have been getting stronger, which is why Obama suggested we needed more troops there. Yes Hurts, Bush turned to Barrack Obama, with his considerable years of military expertise, before making the decision to increase our troops in Afghanistan. And let's not forget that Al Gore invented the Internet.

Get some rest Parasite, you're foaming at the maw again.
Aw, isn't that sweet. A "parasite" comment. You are indeed back to your old Dapto86 form.

Just telling it like it is pal -- you are after all, the Parasite.

Thanks, Decaf, for the insights into your vacuum.