Now that it's irrefutable that BushCo lied about Iraq, how many still believe...

...that they wouldn't have/didn't tamper with the 2004 election in order to keep themselves in power? There is no more fudging it; this is a group of power mad, reprehensible LIARS, for whom lying and cheating was simply SOP. So, those of you who call us election-doubters "paranoid," does the new database of deliberate lying to get us into war give you any pause at all?

.

The study was funded by Soros, so it's invalid.

Learn your right wing talking points!!

Not saying they did or didn't, I'm just saying that using the one to now conclude the other must be true, is just really silly and illogical.

They are proven criminals. You think it's silly to think they'd steal an election, yet not silly that they blatantly, deliberately lied to bring the nation -- the world -- to war for fun and profit?

That's why I asked. It's called questioning their character, determining what they're capable of and how far they'd be willing to go to achieve their ends. There is nothing silly about it at all.

.

You are making huge leaps in logic in order to make some 'told ya so' point that doesn't really exist.

And I'm one who actually believes they may have tampered with the 2004 election. But to say "see? they lied about Iraq, so of COURSE they stole the 2004 election! Told ya so!", is most definitely a bit silly and quite illogical.

They are both completely independent situations. No one here I doubt has ever questioned their honesty, but their ability to be dishonest does not bolster the argument for a stolen election any more than it already had been. The debacle of 2004 must be proven or put forth on its own merits; not on how they did or didn't lie about Iraq.

Obviously, not yours. I didn't say "OF COURSE they stole it!" YOU wrote that. And if you see winning the election and keeping their war on as two separate issues, good god! Pass the bong man, you're smokin' some good shit!

.

It was pretty easy to read between the lines though, with all due respect. Regardless of the words you used, it was quite clear from the OP that you were writing it with the intention/tone of which I referenced above. You were blatantly trying to connect the two as if the proof of one now makes the other true. That's just illogical though.

And no, I don't necessarily see the issues as completely separate, only that the existence of one has nothing to do with whether or not the other did or didn't in fact occur. If the latter did occur, then it would make sense their motivation for having done so. But if the latter didn't occur, then there is no connection to begin with.

I also found it a bit humorous that you posted this thread to begin with, as if some new huge revelation had occurred. In order to bring any validity to the motivating factors of the OP, there would have to be an inkling that those who didn't believe the election was stolen, in large part kept themselves from believing based on having faith in the administration as if they DIDN'T lie about the war. And that, my friend, is monumentally silly in its premise.

Who here didn't already know about the lies? Who here is surprised at the findings of the report? Who here would now say "Wow!!! They're dishonest??? I should REALLYYYYYY take a second look at the whole election thing now. I mean, who thought they could lie???"? That's why I found the OP to be silly and illogical. There is nothing new whatsoever that bolsters your case of the 2004 election being stolen, yet you present the OP in such a way as if there had been some huge eye opening revelation.

Take it back to your conservative cave where the other dolts are willing to kowtow to your bullshit. I'm not one of them.

.

Can't help but thinking that after your recognition that I just handily dismantled your position, that you were only left with the tool of empty personal attack in your arsenal. Pretty weak bro.

No biggie though. I have no real desire to get into these "you're a poo head!" battles anymore, so have yourself a good day! :hi:

You said you "read between the lines." Of a three-sentence post. What you did was make up your own premise and then bloviate and even question my motives for posting in the first place. I will have a good day, because I'll be making it a point to ignore your brand of holier-than-thou crapola. I merely asked a question, OMC. :hi:

.

:rofl:

(And yes, you asked a question. It just simply wasn't a very good one.)

:eyes:

Has your cave fan club posted the obligatory "OMC just pwn3d Atman!" thread yet?

.

NOTHING--even obvious, court approved facts--will ever change their minds. That sort of thing could just NEVER happen here in God's Country, the YOUnited States of Everything, apparently. Or maybe they're just annoyed at anybody who holds a Contririan viewpoint. Whatever, they are the most positively convinced of no wrongdoing people ever. To me they just look scared, too scared to check out the facts and research because they might have to learn something new, and that is SO PAINFUL--don't even bring it up, okay?

I already suspected with regard, the '04 election results.