From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "rl"  wrote in message   
   news:QclEb.58172$cQ.48561@okepread05...   
   > > You probably get that impression because you're an idiot.   
   >   
   > What were you, some kind of asshole baby, Chris?  The world has to be seen   
   > through the lens of what Chris thinks it should be and there's no room for   
   > anything else?  So you think he should have been filmed coming out of the   
   > hole - fine - so what?  I see nothing wrong bringing that shit faced   
   > dictator down a few pegs for all his former victims to see he was reduced   
   to   
   > a homeless slob with lice in his beard, OK?  HE FUCKING BRUTALIZED THOSE   
   > PEOPLE!   
      
   You're the retard who made references to oral sex merely at the thought that   
   Bush might be better depicted by talking instead of threats.   
      
   Normally, that's the kind of behavior people are called "asshole" for.   
      
   > > It's fully unnecessary.   
   >   
   > So thinks you.  I disagree.  I think it is fullly necessary in order to   
   help   
   > assuage the fears of the Iraqi people and show them we are serious in our   
   > commitment to freedom and democracy and that they can put aside their   
   > concers that we are going to bail and Saddam is going to rise back to   
   power.   
   > It was also important to show the idiots of the world who believed in this   
   > man as the only Arab who would stand up to the Americans that Holy War,   
   > Jihad, and Dying for Allah is fine for you menial little Muslims, but he's   
   > going to negotiate for his hide....   
      
   You disagree, big fucking surprise there.  Only some gung-ho jarhead moron   
   would find it necessary to film a man getting his head picked at for lice,   
   and claim it was only to reassure people.  The only thing that would   
   reassure people of, is that Saddam didn't have headlice.  Thought you were   
   pretty smart with that comeback, didn't you?   
      
   > > "You guys"...who's that?   
   >   
   > Why the sidestep, Chris?  You asked me where you got personal and I showed   
   > you.  Are you so intellectually dishonest and petty that you can't even   
   > acknowledge it?   
      
   You obviously labelled me in with some group.  Seems you're the one   
   sidestepping the question.  Who exactly is "you guys"?   
      
   > Well since you seem so adroit at creative (and undocumented) snipping, let   
   > me pull the quote out of our earlier exchange:   
   >   
   > "Any special reason why you brought up Florida?  I sure didn't."   
   >   
   > The inplication here is that this topic or subject is off limits.  I have   
   > the same Right to bring issues to the table as you.  Probably even more   
   so,   
   > since I can still vote.   
      
   No, the "implication" was an interrogatory statement, otherwise known as a   
   question, in this case a question asking why you brought up Florida.  Since   
   it's had to be asked more than once, still without an answer, I'll assume   
   there's some subterfuge on your part.   
      
   You brought the "issue" of Florida up, I asked why, and you "sidestepped"   
   quite afew times now, yet claim you have the right to bring issues to the   
   table.  How exactly are you doing that, if you refuse to answer questions   
   about it?   
      
   > All you do is make double-speak.  You demand Rights that you deny others.   
   > You lie.  You twist.  Hey!  Maybe that's why you're so pissed about the   
   > Saddam video - you and he are pretty much twin brothers at heart!   
      
   Nice, identify me with Saddam.  All you do is avoid answering simple   
   questions.  I demand what?  Where did I demand rights?  The only reference I   
   recall about rights, is our right as citizens to question the actions of our   
   government.  I didn't demand that right, only made mention of it's   
   existence.  What has you so uppity?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)