 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Libs....get your numbers straight....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:25 PM Since you don't even know what I think, how can you argue? The guest above was me- sorry, no cookie on this machine. And I hear a lot about the Bush dictatorship, so WHY can't I talk about the liberal one here on Mudcat? I have presented as much, if not more evidence than those attacking Bush have presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM Are you addressing me, beardedbruce, or Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM I think you are addressing me. So here goes... And I hear a lot about the Bush dictatorship, so WHY can't I talk about the liberal one here on Mudcat? I have presented as much, if not more evidence than those attacking Bush have presented. Nobody said you can't talk about there being a "liberal dictatorship" here in Mudcat. But if you do that, you're not really in a position to criticize those who talk about there being a "Bush dictatorship". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:35 PM commnet was addressed to Bobert. CarolC. As I have said, I do not usually agree with you, but the facts you present are a valuable part of discussion. Bobert states opinion as fact, and expects all to accept his god-like pronouncements. You have not- I may not like what you present, or agree as to it's applicability on specific topics, but you do present supported facts. I may choose to question the source, but that is fair- I do not state that anything you say MUST be false, as a number of those here have said about me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:35 PM sorry... I need my cookie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:43 PM Thanks beardedbruce. Bobert, it looks to me like you're also not in a position to criticize people for doing stuff that you also do yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:11 PM Ahhhhh, the usaul slight of bb's hand... If you reread what I have said and then compare it to what pathological bb *wishes* I'd said, as evidenced in pathological bb's last post where he cleverly manipulares that I have said into a non quote then it become apparent that pathological bb is, ahhh, indeed pathological... So, bb, you want to go back to the post where you cleverly imply that I, pro-human, pro-earth, used the word "hate".... Oh, real easy for you to sneak it in as if you had *hpoed* I had used such a word but, alas, I didn't. You did. This is what I mean by patghological. I don't mind being quoted. I don't like for one minute being misquoted, especiallu by a pathological liar, as bb is... He loves to misquote folks and make it look as if they said what e would loved foir them to have said. That, my frineds, is pathological lieing... Hey, bb, you have domne the crime. Now do the time... Andfor the 100th time. If you want to discuss issues... fine, discuss them but don't friggin'lie to about what other people have said... It's immoral and it doesn't make you the least bit credible... Now, next time you quote me you had better make danged sure that you are quoting me. No more of yer BS games.... And I mean this very seriously, pal... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:13 PM "And I am STILL waiting for any evidence to back your "statements" about conservative control of media....." http://www.liberalslant.com/mediaownership.htm It's a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:23 PM Bobert That was NOT a quote of you, as you so brilliantly determined. It was a statement that I made, and then asked if I should consider it true. ***************** "Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- " ******************************* "This is what I mean by patghological. I don't mind being quoted. I don't like for one minute being misquoted, especiallu by a pathological liar, as bb is... He loves to misquote folks and make it look as if they said what e would loved foir them to have said. That, my frineds, is pathological lieing..." THAT is a direct quote- and YOU are the one who is described so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:27 PM "pathological bb *wishes* I'd said," and you are making more claims for which you have no supporting evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:38 PM Hey, can you friggin' read, bbbbbbbbbb? Reread yer 9:39 post... Yeah you cleverly use most of what I said then throw in, with out comma or anything, bb's pathological addition... Even CarolC thought you had a point with the juxtipostion of fact and fiction... Nice work fir a liar... This is my last warning to you. You misquote me again and you won't want to see me at this year's Getaway... I mean this... I don't mind the rest of yer crap but I will ******not****** allow you to use slight of hand to put words in mt mouth that I would never speak.. This is you last warning... If you continue this pathological path then don't ever say they you weren't nor only given examples but allowed to change the way that you present your positions... I am serious as a heart attack here, my friend. Quit the crap... Quit lieing about what folks say... Argue yer positions and leave yer opponents to do the same but.... quit lieing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM I would say in the case of Bush always being wrong. When has he ever been right. Never. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:02 PM He was trying to replace the allegations with antonyms, and made a mistake using "hatred" in place of "blind loyalty." He should have used "blind rebellion" (or "blind seditiousness," for stronger effect). Bad bb. No need for a food fight at the Getaway, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:06 PM the section between the ***** WAS NOT A QUOTE!!!!!!!!!! WHERE DO YOU SEE A QUOTE??????? BELOW IS MY POST: NOT A QUOTE FROM BOBERT! *************************************************************** Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM Bobert, You are one of the most *patisan* people in Mudville. It doesn't seem to matter the issue. If Bush is for it, yer against it. If he's against it, you are for it. Then you attack anyone who is for what ever Bush is for ot against... Seems like blind hatred to me... SHould I presume that the above statement is true? You have made a similar type of claim about me- ********************************************************************* Similar does NOT mean a quote. YOU, Bobert, need to quit lieing about what folks say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:08 PM oh, what the hell. . . . FOOD FIGHT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:10 PM Sorry Bobert. I actually wasn't thinking about bb's misquote of you when I said that. I was thinking more about calling people "Bushites" and stuff like that. I honestly don't see what that contributes to the debate, and it does give people who support Bush some ammo to use against you in discussions like this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:11 PM Barry, So you think the UN, rather than the Bush administration, is correct about Sudan? No genocide there, I guess............. I disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:12 PM You know what you did, bb Don't act so innocent, you pathological liar... Yeah, keep it up.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:13 PM Oh, man. I keep crossposting with people. heric, would you please serve the milk and cookies now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: heric Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:14 PM There was no misquote, Carol. >>>SCHPLLAPP. . . Here's mashed potatoes in yer eye.<< |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM Bobert, Learn to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:17 PM Nice to see this thread really taking off. The guy that started it ain't been back in 24 hours and everyone's jus' gettin' along. Jaysus, those folks in Dallas sure know how to get a fight goin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:26 PM Can't we all just get along....? I notice that there are no challenges to the numbers I originally posted. So I guess if you can't support your position then it must be on to the next step.... Crucify the messenger..... That's expected. Hubby (Bobert, I didn't mean to loop you in with the dems.....from now on I'll refer to you as lib-lite. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:40 PM Well I'm not going to challenge them because I don't really have an opinion on this subject yet. I'm still in the finding stuff out phase. Thanks for asking though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:40 PM Geez. It really IS a food fight. . . My initial post in this thread came after "Hubby" posted some squishy at best (and obviously inflated) "facts" with no credible citations, then suggested snidely to Carol, when she protested, that her political views were blocking her understanding of The Truth. I did a little research before I slapped back at Susu's Hubby, to see if this was an anomaly in his participation at Mudcat. I found that not only did he follow in the footsteps of some of our rightwing political arguers in his political leanings, he didn't even attempt a pretense at being here for the music. He's here for the trolling. BB and DougR have musical connections, and dropping "below the line" is a time-honored form of recreation here at Mudcat. But Susu's Husband has never been above the line. This is an open forum, and lots of folks pass through here, offering a few posts or asking a question then moving on. But it has been my observation that those who come just for the BS have a different agenda than those who are here for the music or the musical scholarship (thanks, Don!). They have nothing to lose, because they won't be meeting Mudcatters face to face at music events, they won't be offering support when someone has a personal or professional catastrophe. They're just here to stir things up, in a pathetic bid for attention. By that measure, it's too bad this thread has gone on for this long, because it gives quite a feast to a troll, "member" or not. Little did I realize when I confronted the troll "Hubby" (not to be confused with the troll "Troll") that the group would be full of piss and vinegar this weekend and feeling like going a few rounds. When you finish with this slug-fest I want Bobert to get out P-Vine's new hose from the garden center (has she bought any new stuff yet this year?--I'm just guessing, I don't have a camera in your garage!) and hose it off before you go to bed. :) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:44 PM No challenges to the numbers? Go back and read the stupid thread, Hubby, starting with post number four. Your understanding of the topic and your bogus numbers are what set people off. But there I go, feeding the same troll. He's good at it, isn't he? It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, he can just say something to make people think he must really be stupid, and that gives meaning to his existence because it starts them arguing again on HIS thread. Get a life, fella. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:50 PM SRS, You're really hurting my feelings.....:-( I can play a mean radio! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:53 PM I'm fine, SRS.... bb, different story... Same post,differnt thread... The guy loves to make up stuff that he wishes other folks had said. Problem is, they didn't... So bb goes about carefullu postioning what othe folks said (fact) and what bb wishes they had said (fictio0 to make bb's points. Problem is... bb is using tactics to smear othewr folks opinions with the use of carefully crafted quoting... This, IMO, is immoral and dishonest... bb, on the other hand, finds nuthin' wrong with misquoting folkds as long as he has an out... Like big whup... Only big whup is the bif whup I'm gonna put on bb at Getaway if he continues to make statements about what I have said that I didn't say... You want call it a food fight, fine. It's lieing as far as I can see... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 19 Mar 05 - 11:54 PM SRS, What I have read is, and let me paraphrase, if you may,.... You're numbers aren't right because they don't meet up with our liberal agenda.... or Since we can't argue intelligently with these numbers then let's shift the focus to something else. That's what I've read up to this post. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM Ahhhhhh, yeah, hubby... Yer numerbers aren't tight her in Mudville... That is no excuse to lieing and stating that other folks said "this 'er that" that they didn't say...That is the problremwith I have with yer cohort... Maybe you need to take hi aaide and explain that out right lieing ain't cool... Oh yeah, he's gonna say "this and that".... Go back an reread what he has said and even you, Bush-head extriodinaire, will admit that the guy lies thur carefully crafted so-called statements of those who hold differing opinions... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CarolC Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:25 AM ...anyway, Mercury is going retrograde for a while, Mouseketeers, and if this thread ain't a perfect example of how communications get f*cked up during Mercury retrograde, I don't know what is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:36 AM Guest Bush & company has trashed human rights here & abroad by setting an example of abuse for others to follow, aren't we the fine roll model, places like the Sudan & Israel wouldn't be able to hold up a mirror to our faces & do as they please & then tell us to piss off that they're no different than us. Bush needs to put his own house in order first before saying to the world "do as I say not as I do". I also suspect a hidden aggenda. It seems as of late every where we set our foot on foreign soil that country ends up losing something valuable in the process & we end up some how coming out smelling like roses after falling face first into a bed of shit. If we can end up with Sudan in the palm of our hand then we'd need control of only one more nation in north Africa to lock up that part of the world including the Med. Sea. A bit like what's being played out in Afghanistan & Iraq and to gift wrap & complete the package there our eyes have set their site on Iran. If this is how it's going to go down we can call our new foreign polic(e)y as the "American Strangle Hold". I still say Bush has done nothing right & when he tries it's been for the wrong reasons & still he f**ks it up. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:39 AM You didn't "paraphrase" anything, Hubby, you just tried to place your spin to an argument that was better stated and positioned than the nonsense you started the thread with. Paraphrase (take your pick from the following definitions): www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/benjamin/content/page03.htm www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/ollc_glossary.html itc.gsu.edu/academymodules/a202/support/a202b0_50100.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:49 AM "Libs....get your numbers straight...." If we get our numbers straight will they all look like ones? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:34 AM Bobert, If my telling my opinion is lieing, and your telling the world what YOU think I am thinking is truth, we DO have a definite problem. I suggest that you look back at the posts, and BACK OFF! If there is anyone who has made a habit of stating what others are supposedly thinking, it is YOU. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:34 AM sorry, last post mine... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:11 AM No, you don't strop at *just* telling you opionion, bb. You clevery yake waht someone has said, many times word for word that others reading you post may think is exactly what someone else said then you thorw in language which changes then intent of the other person (specificaly me) in a manner to suit your argument. That, my friend, is not arguing or stating *your* position... It is your dihonest attempt to mistate others positions. When I, on the other hand, make a statement about how I think someone else thinks I leave no doubt that the words are mine... Thats where the difference lies (pun intended). Like I'm not going to try make others think you said something that you didn't. Sure, I might point out the hypocrisy of yer positions but I don't have to put words in your mought to do that. You do a fine enough job all by your self... Now I'm going back to to ignoring you becasue it is always the same end game with you. Just proves to me that you musy not be too comfy with the set of values you live with. Bye. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:18 AM "Just proves to me that you musy not be too comfy with the set of values you live with." Is that an accurate quote of you? No additions, or changes. But your usual lying statement of what you say others mean. Your statements here prove to me that IMO, YOU have a real problem dealing with anyone who disagrees with your warped worldview. NOT that you MUST have a problem, but that it is my opinion that you do. Perhaps accuracy is too subtle for you to understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:19 AM sorry, again- no cookie above... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:40 AM 100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq By Rob Stein; Washington Post Staff Writer; Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16 One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion. The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases. The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine. Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal. The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey. "We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said. When the researchers examined the causes of the 73 violent deaths collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to airstrikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry. Forty-six percent of the violent deaths involving coalition forces were men ages 15 to 60, but 46 percent were children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported. The researchers and the Lancet editors acknowledged that the study has clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some information. But the researchers said the findings represent the most reliable estimate to date. The paper was "extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited" and rushed into print "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq, Richard Horton, the journal's editor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Staff writer Josh White and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:46 AM Thank you, Freda.... I knew I read the 100,000 wstimate somewhere and since I read the Post evryday, now I know where... I try to keep as many articles I find interesting in a file but miss quite a few... Thanks again... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM brucie, Interesting points in the clicky (19 Mar 05 - 10:13 PM ), but hardly evidence of what is presented in the media. Since Max owns the machine that Mudcat is on, are we to assume that Mudcat has *only* his biases? ( and no, I DO NOT know Max's bias or opinion on any topics- Like most media owners, he has NOT forced us to comply with his views on any topics.) Or perhaps those who post ( like the media reporters, investigators, and editors who determine what is placed on the media in question) make a contribution. And ALL the studies I have so far seen show that those people are out of line with the ratios of conservatives to liberals, Dems to Reps, etc that the population as a whole can be shown to have. The studies which look at the articles that proport to be news as opposed to opinion show a liberal bias, as opposed to the polled results on those issues of the general public. The studies that look at the self-declared politial leanings of reporters and editors show a liberal bias, as compared to the general public. The studies which look at the beliefs of those in the media who declare themselves to be middle of the road show a majority have stands on issues that the general public considers liberal ( in comparison with the same issues as polled in public) Obviously, if the person selling the paper to you is a conservative, this would make it conservatively biased? NOT If you can show where the ownership of the media has dictated the choice of stories, or slant put on the news, I would certainly be willing to listen. I know there are cases where this has occurred- I just do not see enough of it to belive that it over-rides the demonstrated liberal bias as shown by looking at the actual news presented to the public. But thank you for at least attempting to address the issue, rather than making ad hominim remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:49 AM it's a pleasure Bobert - and just for you, i put the article in, instead of a blue clicky! It's so hard to know what's going on, because the first casualty of war is always the truth. It's likely US casualties are higher than stated as well - the true casualty figures will only be known by those at the Pentagon and a few selected personnel. Vietnam was a good reflection initially 6,000 Killed in Action were reported. later that rose to 58,000 and later a further 40,000 were deemed missing in action. So if Vietnam is anything to judge, then most certainly casualty figures are manipulated for public consumption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: freda underhill Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM p.s. "We don't do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: susu Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM Thanks Freda for posting that story. That was some good info. Now go to The Lancet, the source quoted in the story and read the entire first page and learn how the numbers are broken down. If you read my original post, I do not disagree with the number of 100,000. What I disagree with is that all 100,000 are innocent civilians and all were caused by US military forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Frankham Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM Hey what happened to the policy of including BS under the BS category? Do we have to wade once more through the crap to get to the music? This thread represents a low water-mark in the Mudcat thread game. This "Libs" diatribe was intended to be provacative without adding a shred of insight or useful factual information. Maybe Mudcat should change it's name to Mudslinging instead. I'm not advocating censorship here, though. If someone wants to crap on Mudcat by this kind of provocation they should be allowed to do so. But it's still crap. And the ones that do it should be ashamed of themselves for not only displaying their stupidity but engaging in a wasteful smear campaign. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: CStrong Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM Whew! Is it over yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM Frank: I fail to see your point (if you intended one). Susu's husband has only attempted to clarify, with data supplied in his first post, the breakdown of the 100,000 figure contained in the Washington Post story. Some here on the Mudcat have evidently claimed that all 100,000 deaths should be credited to U. S. forces. Clearly, according to the date Hubby provided, that is not the case. If anyone wants to challenge the data, then do so! I see nothing diabolical about this thread at all. The objection from the left appears to be that Hubby has pricked a hole in their balloon. As to having to wade through stuff to get to the music threads, the thread is clearly included with the BS section of Mudcat. What's the problem? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight.... From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM All the stuff above not withstanding, the US has no right still being in Iraq. That, pal, should be the whole point of the thread. Arguing as to whether 20000 or 100000 civilians have been killed is futile. One is too many in a bullshit war. Fabricated evidence to invade, and crap spin to stay. America is out of control, and that is being orchestrated by folks in Washington. Period. |
