• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Traitor Accosts Karl Rove at Book Signing

You have no class. your lies are an abhorrent dishonest tactic. pl

Direct quote:

yes, it is treason to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.....


Giving aid to the enemy's family is giving aid to the insurgents who just killed Americans.

They did? show where the money went to childeren, and not the enemy. link please or stop lying.

It was your claim. You show us the link showing where the money went. You're the one who claims to know it went to the "enemy."
 
Direct quote:





It was your claim. You show us the link showing where the money went. You're the one who claims to know it went to the "enemy."





This is different than the lie you claimed I said. Show some integrity.
 
Sure it does, YOu give money to the enemy,the enemy thats killing US troops, you are a traitor and should be shot. :shrug:

That's not what YOU said. Have some integrity. Go back to your direct quote.

But let's run with this - what if Code Pink had gone over and given medical treatment directly instead of just sending money for it? Would that be treason?
 
That's not what YOU said. Have some integrity. Go back to your direct quote.

But let's run with this - what if Code Pink had gone over and given medical treatment directly instead of just sending money for it? Would that be treason?




That's not what happened. They gave money to "the other side", directly funding the enemy.


All your spin in defense of traitors won't help your dishonesty.
 
That's not what happened. They gave money to "the other side", directly funding the enemy.

I don't think so. As I remember, they gave money for medical treatment of civilians after the battle.
 
I don't think so. As I remember, they gave money for medical treatment of civilians after the battle.




They according to them, gave money 600k to "the other side"..... Make excuses for dirtbags who gave money that went most assuredly to people who killed your fellow countrymen, defending your freedom. :thumbs:
 
They according to them, gave money 600k to "the other side"

For what? This doesn't contain enough detail.

The U.S. military gives medical treatment to "the other side" too. Treason.
 
For what? This doesn't contain enough detail.

Right, so If I gave 600k to al qaeda you'd cackle "for what"?


Some how I doubt it.



The U.S. military gives medical treatment to "the other side" too. Treason.



Does not follow. Please stop being obtuse. thanks
 
Right, so If I gave 600k to al qaeda you'd cackle "for what"?

Did they give it to a terrorist organization?

Or were they speaking in general terms, noting that they were supporting civilians on both sides -- just like the US military does -- and that this is unusual? Why did they put the "other side" in quotes in that statement, huh? Does that help? I doubt it.

And why would they publicly declare it if they were sending money to terrorists? Huh?

Your problem is that you jump to wild conclusions based on simplistic, literal reading of words. You just can't handle something that's not spoon fed to you.

When you have proof of exactly what the money was spent on, get back to us. Until then, you have nothing but a vague statement.

Does not follow. Please stop being obtuse. thanks

Yes, it does follow, to anyone with half a brain. Grow one.
 
Did they give it to a terrorist organization?

Or were they speaking in general terms, noting that they were supporting civilians on both sides -- just like the US military does -- and that this is unusual? Why did they put the "other side" in quotes in that statement, huh? Does that help? I doubt it.

And why would they publicly declare it if they were sending money to terrorists? Huh?

Your problem is that you jump to wild conclusions based on simplistic, literal reading of words. You just can't handle something that's not spoon fed to you.

When you have proof of exactly what the money was spent on, get back to us. Until then, you have nothing but a vague statement.



Who is "the other side"? Please list them.




Yes, it does follow, to anyone with half a brain. Grow one.



Are you losing all composure now, hurling insults. Sooo sad.... :lamo
 
Who is "the other side"? Please list them.

The other side could mean the children and other civilians injured after a battle, especially when put in quotes. You know, the same people the U.S. military gives medical treatment too. Oh, they'll also treat wounded enemy combatants.

When you actually have evidence of where this money went, get back to us. Until then, you have nothing about a vague statement.
 
The other side could mean the children and other civilians injured after a battle, especially when put in quotes. You know, the same people the U.S. military gives medical treatment too. Oh, they'll also treat wounded enemy combatants.

When you actually have evidence of where this money went, get back to us. Until then, you have nothing about a vague statement.




The other side in the battle of falujah, Are the same people who killed americans.


It's really not a difficult concept unless you have an anti-troop bias.
 
The other side in the battle of falujah, Are the same people who killed americans.

Not necessarily. It's a very vague term. Especially in quotes.

When you have something specific, get back to us.

It's really not a difficult concept unless you have an anti-troop bias.

**** you. Don't even try that crap. Shows just how low you'll go.

This is over.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. It's a very vague term. Especially in quotes.

When you have something specific, get back to us.



**** you. Don't even try that crap. Shows just how low you'll go.

This is over.


Hey i just call it as i see it. These people gabe money to the enemy who killed us troops and boasted about it. You want to defend them. I'm sorry you lost all composure, but it is what it is. :shrug:
 
Hey i just call it as i see it. These people gabe money to the enemy who killed us troops and boasted about it. You want to defend them. I'm sorry you lost all composure, but it is what it is. :shrug:

good for you. never let the truth get in the way of your backwards opinion [/s]
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks, now.
 
good for you. never let the truth get in the way of your backwards opinion [/s]




My opinion, good sir, is that when you boast abou giving money to "the other side" you are boasting about giving it to those folks who kill my brothers and sisters.... That is aiding and abetting the enemy savages.


Sorry you see it differently.
 
My opinion, good sir, is that when you boast abou giving money to "the other side" you are boasting about giving it to those folks who kill my brothers and sisters.... That is aiding and abetting the enemy savages.


Sorry you see it differently.

i do appreciate you vividly illustrating my point
 
Right, have you been waiting all this time to respond to lil ol me? :ssst:



Again, explain how giving money to the enemy is not treason.

still waiting for you to explain how humane efforts are mistaken as treason
 
Watching you dance is very entertaining, Rev.

Regardless, there are not enough documented facts here to make any sort of reasonable determination as to who exactly received benefit from the money. You are stating your biased opinion and nothing more. This doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make others wrong.

But when you jump up, turn around, stomp your pretty little feet, and insist that others are "lying," or have no integrity because they don't eagerly leap to partisan conclusions the way you do, it just makes you look like a dancin' fool.

:shrug:
 
Watching you dance is very entertaining, Rev.

Regardless, there are not enough documented facts here to make any sort of reasonable determination as to who exactly received benefit from the money. You are stating your biased opinion and nothing more. This doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make others wrong.

But when you jump up, turn around, stomp your pretty little feet, and insist that others are "lying," or have no integrity because they don't eagerly leap to partisan conclusions the way you do, it just makes you look like a dancin' fool.

:shrug:






Oh, how cute is is when you call me names...... Almost relevant! :lamo:



Again, who is the "other side"?



We are talking about aiding the "othe side" of those who killed Americans.


There is no dance, and if there was, The Good Reverend would obviously have you swooning shorty...... :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom