> > You failed to note that Bush was elected by a majority of Americans
> > AFTER the invasion of Iraq.
> >
off_world_beings wrote: 
> In a fixed election, he scraped by. You must be so embarrassed.
>
You haven't posted any evidence that the election was fixed. In the
U.S., the President is elected by the Electoral Congress - it's a
representative government, not a popular direct vote. Bush won, Gore
lost - it's as simple as that.
 
> > You also failed to note that almost 95% of your congressional
> > leaders voted to use force to oust Saddam, including your
> > candidate for President and Vice-President
> >
> MY candidate?....get real.
>
There were only two candidates. So, you're saying that you didn't have
a candidate, so you didn't vote in the election. Go figure. Eighty-one
Dems voted to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Not one
single candidate for President voted against the resolution. 

> I am saying and have said all along that the call to war in Iraq 
> would lead to a quagmire that will drag the US deep into deep shit.
>
So, you're saying that the U.S. is in a war that was called by most of
your congressional leaders.
 
> You did not predict this. It was obvious. That makes you a lesser 
> mind, and insignificant in the world of ideas, along with anyone
> else that supported the war, I don't care which side they are on.
> Only the sub-species thinks that if you critisize one side then 
> you must be all for the other side. Football team mentality
> sub-species arrogance that got you into the mess you are in in the
> first place.
>
So, the eighty-one Dems that voted in favor of the resolution to use
force are a "sub-species" of humans and of a lesser mind than yourself.
 
> > And not a single candidate would agree with your political 
> > opinion on an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from the 
> > Middle East.
> >
> When did I call for an immediate withdrawal? 
> 
So, you're in favor of staying the course, not withdrawing, and you're
not in favor of a surge.

> Republicans always LIE about this. 
>
So, you're saying that Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi aren't in favor of
an immediate withdrawal.

> Are you on drugs like Rush Limbaugh and Ted Haggard?
> 
The arguementum ad hominiem attack is the second to last resort of
someone who is losing a debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy.

My solution? Fight a war to win - kill your enemies and protect your
weakest point.

Reply via email to