[dcolton]

Anyway, 9/11 victim's families have come down hard on Bush the goatherder, by saying it is sick, that he is using it purely for political gain, etc. I think we get the point.

Now I know I will get flammed for this, and my heart certainly goes out to all of the victim's families - but...aren't these the same families who believed they were owed millions because of the tragedy?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Who said anythign about Democrats. I am poiniting out the Bush campaing. If a Democrat goes out and kilsl someone for political advantage, is it justified if a rebuplican does that too? not really.

No not at all. But to belittle Bush for doing it, and NOT doing the same when a Dem does it is Hypocritical. Heck Mr "I am a Nam vet" Kerry doesn't have problems with such whorings.

Hypocrisy, and utter cr@p from both sides, that's my view. Neither side is worth an iota of credit.

At least you are consistent.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Now I know I will get flammed for this, and my heart certainly goes out to all of the victim's families - but...aren't these the same families who believed they were owed millions because of the tragedy?

I'm not sure, I guess some might have, and others didn't, but I guess that's no different to the nature of litigation in America these days, sue anyone for anything.

Thing to note though, the Bush admin have acted horrendously in the wake of 9/11, forget about the pre-event intelligence, just look at the dealing of the matter afterwards, it's shockingly disturbing. I never had a nice word to say about any of the Bush clan, or their cohorts before 9/11, after it? I woul;dn't blink an eye if someone came along with a sock full of snookerballs and smacked them all over the head, three times.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No not at all. But to belittle Bush for doing it, and NOT doing the same when a Dem does it is Hypocritical. Heck Mr "I am a Nam vet" Kerry doesn't have problems with such whorings.
[/B]

No, I know, I'm not a fan of people who change their views to suit an audience, occasion, or trend, they all seem to do that. Just sad.

[dcolton]

The pre-event intellegence...you can't blame that on Bush after 8 years of the impeached president Mr. Clinton. Maybe if he spent more time with his pants up, 9/11 could have been avoided. And after the fact...it's easy to be a Monday night QB...hell, Kerry agreed with Bush and his policies in the beginning - so did most of America. What is different now?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
hell, Kerry agreed with Bush and his policies in the beginning - so did most of America. What is different now?

It's election time! Time to divide and take sides!

At the time, it was a come together as a whole time.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's election time! Time to divide and take sides!

At the time, it was a come together as a whole time.

exactly!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The pre-event intellegence...you can't blame that on Bush after 8 years of the impeached president Mr. Clinton. Maybe if he spent more time with his pants up, 9/11 could have been avoided.

Or maybe if the incoming administration had listened to the departing Clinton team's warnings, instead of eagerly drawing up maps of Baghdad ...

BTW, this brouhaha over the Bush/Cheney ads is not confined to WTC widows; the International Association of Firefighters is pretty pissed about it too:

The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (IAFF), Harold Schaitberger, issued the following statement today after President Bush unveiled new political ads that use images of fire fighters in September 11, 2001 attacks for political gain.

�I�m disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks. The use of 9/11 images are hypocrisy at its worst. Here�s a President that initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and now uses its first anniversary as cause to promote his re-election. Here is a President that proposed two budgets with no funding for FIRE Act grants and still plays on the image of America�s bravest. His advertisements are disgraceful.

There's also a resolution calling on Bush to pull the ads and apologize.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
oh, and "proofage"...

Your "proofage" proved Zimphire's point.

All Blix said is that he THINKS that maybe Iraq didn't have weapons, based on what they haven't found. Of course, he doesn't know for sure because they NEVER PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE. In fact, Blix seems perplexed by the fact that if they didn not find weapons, and that there must be "some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth."

Again, if they did not have the WMD, all they had to do was provide the evidence that they were destroyed. For whatever reason, they did not. They where required to per the UN mandates ending the first Gulf War. Either they were engaging in a huge and dangerous bluff which we called, where too stupid to understand what was required (again dangerous), or were hiding something. Those are the only options that makes sense.

As for the "world community" voting Kerry instead of Bush, I'm sure that most of our better Presidents would have been picked over if people from other countries got to choose. I'd imagine that Washington would certainly have been left behind for some weak pro-England candidate if the "world" had it's choice.

Kerry can be proud of his hypothetical achievements all he wants. In fact, I'd suggest he next run for Emperor of the Galaxy. It's probably not going to get him any more power here on Earth than he already has, or will be getting in the future though.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
well the Bush rodeo has now entered the total dumbass state, Bush has decided to use 9/11 as his clarion call to highlight his 'leadership in times of crises', now relatives are ustifiably incenced by this, and have slated him.... 9/11 victim's families have come down hard on Bush the goatherder, by saying it is sick, that he is using it purely for political gain, etc. I think we get the point.

Have you even seen the TV spots? My guess is that you haven't, and that you are ignorantly spewing out someone else's position to suit your agenda.

If you have windows media player, you can watch these:

Commercial 1

Commercial 2

Commercial 3

[daimoni]

.

[Spliffdaddy]

I know whose vote I'll be cancelling-out.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
All Blix said is that he THINKS that maybe Iraq didn't have weapons, based on what they haven't found. Of course, he doesn't know for sure because they NEVER PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE. In fact, Blix seems perplexed by the fact that if they didn not find weapons, and that there must be "some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth."

Again, if they did not have the WMD, all they had to do was provide the evidence that they were destroyed. For whatever reason, they did not.

here is the explanation:

"HANS BLIX: Yes, but it has been surfacing already in the United States that the Iraq might have tried to fool them surreptitiously in believing that there was something. You see, if they didn't have anything after '91, there must be some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth.

RAFAEL EPSTEIN: And the supposition in the States is that Saddam Hussein wanted to maintain a threat to defer an attack?

HANS BLIX: That's right. I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog', without having a dog."

and more

here

Mr Blix and a team of UN weapons inspectors spent more than three months searching for WMD in Iraq in the build-up to the war without finding anything they deemed significant.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
My argument is unchanged regardless of power. Israel was not powerful in its early days and still managed to fight off assault by all surrounding countries.

they might have won that war, but israel sure as hell� wouldn't exist or at least not be in any position to carry out it's policies, if it wasn't backed up by a potential military intervention from the us, or if the PA itself had a strong military force. that's for damn sure.

i personally don't know (of course) why the iraqi's didn't (and probably couldn't) provide any proof that they had "destroyed" their weapons of mass destruction. what is sure though, is that they DIDN'T have any (see my other posts) at the time of the invasion!

on second thought, asking for such a proof is completely asenine, since there wouldn't be any way to prove their destruction, had they destroyed them back around 91, and didn't record the process (btw, that's what most weapons inspectors believe as well).

the question of course is, why is it more important to show the destruction of their weapons arsenal, than to prove that they simply don't have any? muy hunch is, that it is pretty easy to do the latter (the un weapons inspectors clearly did), while it could be pretty much impossible to do the first (if they didn't record the process), and in turn justify an invasion.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
here is the explanation:

I'd already read Blix's theory.

The bottom line is that he didn't have proof of WMD, or proof that the ones they knew they did have where destroyed. Logically, the disapearance of that which you knew existed does not automatically equal the destruction of those things, which is why they were mandated to provide evidence. There are other credible options, regardless of what Blix may have theorized. If Iraq had done what it had agreed to post-Gulf War, we wouldn't be discussing this right now. It didn't, an those in leadership who had the power to make things right suffered. Again, either it's a bluff we called (if there weren't WMD), or they were hiding something. Either way, we know NOW that Iraq won't be producing WMD to use against anyone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
If Iraq had done what it had agreed to post-Gulf War, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

And that folks is the bottom line. Saddam and Saddam alone is to blame for this.

He could have easily stopped it at any time.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:

Don't edit my posts if you are going to quote me you little ****

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Don't edit my posts if you are going to quote me you little ****

It's the only way he knows how to debate sadly.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's the only way he knows how to debate sadly.

at least i know how to, unlike you.

[Zimphire]

Thanks for just proving my point.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Don't edit my posts if you are going to quote me you little ****

LOL

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thanks for just proving my point.

oh, you had a point?! good thing you mentioned that, because judging from your post you only had meaningless rhetoric.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Either way, we know NOW that Iraq won't be producing WMD to use against anyone.

actually what we know now, is that at the time of the invasion iraq didn't have any wmds. too bad for you republicons...

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
actually what we know now, is that at the time of the invasion iraq didn't have any wmds. too bad for you republicons...

actually what we know now is the dems aint got nobody that can beat dubya and life is gonna suck for peaceniks and frenchmen and jane fonda for the next 4.8 years. too bad for you democrats.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
actually what we know now is the dems aint got nobody that can beat dubya and life is gonna suck for peaceniks and frenchmen and jane fonda for the next 4.8 years. too bad for you democrats.

actually what i'm wondering is why dubya is even capaining, since he si clearly going to lose to kerry, sending bushwhacker and the rest of you neonazi-cons running to the hills of montana to evade taxation for the lazy poor and married gays...l8r guys!!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
actually what we know now, is that at the time of the invasion iraq didn't have any wmds. too bad for you republicons...

No we know is, at the time of the invasion, if Iraq has them, they hid them in the sand. If they don't they moved them elsewhere. If they got rid of them like they were told to do, they never showed proof.

No matter how you spell it, it's still Iraq's fault.

Sorry to bust your deluded bubble.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No matter how you spell it, it's still Iraq's fault

no matter what bully argument you wanna make. at the time of the invasion, iraq neither had wmds, nor did they have the means to produce them. sorry to bust your badly fabricated lie to justify an illegal invasion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no matter what bully argument you wanna make.

Bully? lol you crack me up grashoppaaah

at the time of the invasion, iraq neither had wmds, nor did they have the means to produce them. sorry to bust your badly fabricated lie to justify an illegal invasion.

And you know this for a 100% fact how? Oh that's right Hans Blix said he didn't believe they did! SO IT MUST BE TRUE!



We already went over that remember. You lost.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bully? lol you crack me up grashoppaaah

sure. the only position from which little fascists like you can argue, ne c'est-pas? is it safe dimphire??? *driiiiiiilllll* LOOOOOOOOOOL

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you know this for a 100% fact how? Oh that's right Hans Blix said he didn't believe they did!

no, he said just before the invasion THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY!!!!!!! evidence for wmds. but then of course that wouldn't stop the bushwhacker from following through on his plan to make iraq into a middle-east us army base/oil production plant, wouldn't it nooooow!!

LOL

you republicons really suck a$$! the entire world knows it, too bad there are enough morons living in the us to even put up a vote for dumba$$ dubya.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
sure. the only position from which little fascists like you can argue, ne c'est-pas? is it safe dimphire??? *driiiiiiilllll* LOOOOOOOOOOL

I would respond to that but I don't speak moron.

no, he said just before the invasion THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY!!!!!!! evidence for wmds.

lol Funny the US troops for more stuff in less than a year than the inspectors ever did in 12 years. That tells me a lot about the inspections.

Tell me oh wise one. Did the inspectors inspect every piece of land on Iraq? No, no they did not. They didn't even inspect all the buildings.

but then of course that wouldn't stop the bushwhacker from following through on his plan to make iraq into a middle-east us army base/oil production plant, wouldn't it nooooow!!

you republicons really suck a$$! the entire world knows it,

It must suck to be so insecure with you beliefs to project ideals onto the WHOLE WORLD when it's obvious by just looking in this forum that this is a lie.

Sad. :/

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
lol Funny the US troops for more stuff in less than a year than the inspectors ever did in 12 years.

i think the only thing that the us troops found in iraq, was a resistance they didn't take into their caluculation when they started invading that country. too bad (for them) they didn't find anything that would justify their war crimes.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It must suck to be so insecure with you beliefs to project ideals onto the WHOLE WORLD when it's obvious by just looking in this forum that this is a lie.

sorry paw...



LOOOOllllllerBlaDez

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
i think

Good at least you are now treating opinions as opinions. That is a step in the right direction.

that the us troops found in iraq, was a resistance they didn't take into their caluculation when they started invading iraq. too bad (for them though) they didn't find anything that would justify their war crimes.

You again are forgetting history. Iraq not complying justified this. Even your buddy Clinton said as much.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
actually what we know now, is that at the time of the invasion iraq didn't have any wmds. too bad for you republicons...

If someone has a concealed weapon, and no one can find it, does that mean that the weapon does not exist? Of course not. You and others BELIEVE that Iraq didn't have any WMD. That isn't unreasonable. It was, of course, Iraq's job to prove that to be the fact. They refused and suffered the consequences.

Believing something and it being proven as fact are two differnt things. Please take a note.

On a related note, it looks like Kerry's getting another of his cherished endorsements...this time from the North Koreans!

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727088

Way to go!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Good at least you are now... justified. Even your buddy Clinton said as much.

well thank you dim!

i think me and my buddy clinton are going to drop some bombs of our own now. bring on the bop gun baby, and some weapons of brass confunktion!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
If someone has a concealed weapon, and no one can find it, does that mean that the weapon does not exist? Of course not. You and others BELIEVE that Iraq didn't have any WMD. That isn't unreasonable. It was, of course, Iraq's job to prove that to be the fact. They refused and suffered the consequences.

Believing something and it being proven as fact are two differnt things. Please take a note.

Yeah while that is true and all, you can't believe that and use it to bash Bush. So they have to exaggerate and treat unknowns as ABSOLUTE FACT to save face.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
If someone has a concealed weapon, and no one can find it, does that mean that the weapon does not exist? Of course not. You and others BELIEVE that Iraq didn't have any WMD.

so, you and others believe that bush and his neonazi-con cohorts weren't behind 9/11. do you have ABSOLUTE proof that they weren't? no? didn't think so!

next...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
so, you and others believe that bush and his neonazi-con cohorts weren't behind 9/11. do you have ABSOLUTE proof that they weren't? no? didn't think so!

next...

What a bizarro comparison.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Face Ache:

Although part of me wants Bush back in. I'm anti-American like that.

Kerry is just Bush Lite.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
so, you and others believe that bush and his neonazi-con cohorts weren't behind 9/11. do you have ABSOLUTE proof that they weren't? no? didn't think so!

next...

Get back to us when.

A. It's proven that the people you claim where behind, at one time, 9/11. AND

B. In order to avoid some sort of harsh circumstances, promise to show that they no longer would back terrorist acts.

THEN you'll have an argument that doesn't reek of "apples to oranges". Read up on your logic, please.

Next....indeed.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Get back to us when.

A. It's proven that the people you claim where behind, at one time, 9/11. AND

B. In order to avoid some sort of harsh circumstances, promise to show that they no longer would back terrorist acts.

THEN you'll have an argument that doesn't reek of "apples to oranges". Read up on your logic, please.

Next....indeed.

erm, you are not the brightest star in the evening sky, are you? the premise was to show something to be absolutely true, beyond any doubt!!!

it's an issue of who is in a position, to demand proof or evidence...not wether the evidence actually exists or not...*duh*

yeah, next...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
erm, you are not the brightest star in the evening sky, are you?

Phoen starting your posts with personal attacks constantly wont get you respect in here.

BTW you might want to read this

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=169630

it's an issue of who is in a position, to demand proof or evidence...not wether the evidence actually exists or not...*duh*

The UN was indeed in the position to demand Iraq to show evidence. The UN said the US had the AUTHORITY to invade Iraq, but not UN approval.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW you might want to read this

oh please just, stfu.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The UN was indeed in the position to demand Iraq to show evidence

the un weapons inspectors said that they didn't find ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL for weapons of mass destruction in iraq! that's all. that's why the un didn't give its approval, and that's why the us's reason for invading iraq was a fabricated LIE!!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
the un weapons inspectors said that they didn't find ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL for weapons of mass destruction in iraq! that's all. that's why they didn't give their approval, and that's why the us's reason for invading iraq was a fabricated LIE!!!

Have you not been reading ANYTHING anyone has said in this thread?


Or do you just have your mind set and go on through life totally deluded to what really goes on?

REALITY <--Get a grip on it.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Have you not been reading ANYTHING anyone has said in this thread?

yeah. that's why i said, - the only reason for a justification (to invade iraq) could come from a demand made from a position of power, in order to fabricate a lie to justify the invasion. get it?

the demands on iraq were formulated in such a way, that they would inevitably give the us an (albeit deceitful) justification. too bad a lot of people figured this out already and have exposed the us regime as the totalitarian and fascist ratpack that it is.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or do you just have your mind set and go on through life totally deluded to what really goes on?

actually that pretty much describes your situation. i thouroughly doubt that you have any idea of what goes on outside of "hicksville". but that's okay, you wouldn't understand anyway.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yeah. that's why i said, - the only reason for a justification (to invade iraq) could come from a demand made from a position of power, in order to fabricate a lie to justify the invasion. get it?

What lie was that? Who lied? And do you have proof said person lied?

I'll answer that for you. No you don't. You are making what is called baseless accusations while treating them as fact. This is why your credibility is lacking here.

the demands on iraq were formulated in such a way, that they would inevitably give the us an (albeit deceitful) justification. too bad a lot of people figured this out already and have exposed the us regime as the totalitarian and fascist ratpack that it is.

LOL! Funny the same demands were given to other governments. They met them We didn't invade. Funny how that works. Your deluded conspiracy theories are just that.

You can't come to this board spewing out garbage and acting as if it is fact without being busted. Maybe in other boards, but not this one.

Try again grashoppaah.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What lie was that? Who lied? And do you have proof said person lied?

yes. bush lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction and being an imminent threat to the us. do you actually dare to deny this? hell not even bush denies it any longer. at least he was clever enough to pass the buck to the CIA...so much for "personal responsibility".

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is why your credibility is lacking here.

i don't give two shits and a fu<k what you think my "credibility is". i'm just exposing you for the lying closet fascist that you are, thats all!

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL! Funny the same demands were given to other governments. They met them We didn't invade.

what do you think gives the us the right to invade "any country" for having wmds anyway??? oh wait, the us is a country run by a bunch of megalomaniacl fascist sh*theads...i forgot!

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You can't come to this board spewing out garbage and acting as if it is fact without being busted. Maybe in other boards, but not this one.

funny, nobody, especially not you, has "busted" me for anything yet. LOL. do you actually think you can put me into a position where i have to "prove" anything to you.

try again, republicvnt.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yes. bush lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction and being an imminent threat to the us.

Heh let me explain something to you. If someone tells you that there is a guy around the corner that has a gun, and you tell the person next to you NOT to go around the corner because there is a guy with a gun, and that person does anyhow, and there is no guy, are you a liar? Of course not.
Again baseless accusations. Considering Clinton thought the SAME thing Bush did and I don't consider Clinton being a liar either. Because I am not a political zealot.

They both had the same people telling them the same thing.

So unless you have solid proof that Bush lied (Which you don't) it is a baseless accusation.

do you actually dare to deny this? hell not even bush denies it any longer. at least he was clever enough to pass the buck to the CIA...so much for "personal responsibility".

LOL! SO you are saying Bush said he indeed lied? AHAHAH boy you suck at comprehension if you ACTUALLY think that. But I don't think you do. You are just trying to save face again. But I will play along. Please show me where Bush admitted this.

i don't give two shits and a fu<k what you think my "credibility is". i'm just exposing you for the lying closet fascist that you are, thats all!

Well so far you haven't done a good job at it. Esp compared to how many times I have busted you for all out making up crap. And not only me either.

what do you think gives the us the right to invade "any country" for having wmds anyway??? oh wait, the us is a country run by a bunch of megalomaniacl fascist sh*theads...i forgot!

Ask the UN. They seem to think they had the right. And they did.

funny, nobody, especially not you, has "busted" me for anything yet.

LOL ok there mr IRAQ showed proof that they got rid of WMDs and you can prove it!

LOL. do you actually think you can put me into a position where i have to "prove" anything to you.

I already did. You failed miserably. And now you are just being obnoxiously pretentious.

Your attempts are failing more miserably each time you post grasshoppaah.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh let me explain something to you. If someone tells you that there is a guy around the corner that has a gun, and you tell the person next to you NOT to go around the corner because there is a guy with a gun, and that person does anyhow, and there is no guy, are you a liar? Of course not.

and once again, you try to trip me up, and fail miserably.

a) first of all, your analogy is terribly flawed (yet, the funny thing is, you indirectly at least admit to your side being "misinformed", and thus to having made a "wrong" decision), showing just how stupid you really are. lying implies deceit, and for deceit there needs to be a reason. unlike "me telling the person that there is a guy around the corner...blah blah" i wouldn't have anything to profit from. bush, otoh, used the LIE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF WMDS TO JUSTIFY THE INVASION OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

b) if i made the judgement to give out information based on what i heared and believed to be true, you bet your gum bleeding hick a$$ i would take responsibility from what followed. i would expect the same from a leader of a country. especially when one of the cornerstones of my ideology was "taking personal responsibility for ones actions". but instead of admitting that he lied, what does he do? passes the buck to CIA, saying he was "mis-informed".

and c) bush said that he KNEW that iraq had weapons of md. that was a flat out lie, even IF he had been misinformed by the CIA (btw, there are cia reports that actually claim that the agency told bush that they couldn't find anything in iraq).

so there, deconstructed for your viewing pleasure. eat 'em up. yum.

oh, and complete and total *smackdown*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Heh let me explain something to you. If someone tells you that there is a guy around the corner that has a gun, and you tell the person next to you NOT to go around the corner because there is a guy with a gun, and that person does anyhow, and there is no guy, are you a liar? Of course not. [/B]

Hell yes you are lying.
to use your own analogy, if you tell the second person you know FOR SURE there is a guy with a gun around the corner, that you have conclusive IRONCLAD proof but refuse to share it with the second guy, but in fact you haven't seen that gunman yourself, YOU ARE LYING to them.

why is this concept so difficult for you? Even your own analogy demonstrates it.

[shmerek]

At first I was disappointed that zim was allowed back in the political lounge but with phoenix smacking him around it is kind of amusing.