Charles Krauthammer reveals he has only weeks to live.

[Cold War Liberal]

If Krauthammer is going to hell for supporting the Iraq war at one point then so are like 90% of Americans who were aware of the war at the time

[junior chįmp]

If Krauthammer is going to hell for supporting the Iraq war at one point then so are like 90% of Americans who were aware of the war at the time

This is tomfoolery. Bush lied about Iraq. Democrats in Congress knew it was a lie and they went along with it anyway. The War in Iraq never would of happened if every Democrat in Congress voted against it. It would be pure hackery to give the Democratic Party a pass on this.

This is an abdication of duty. People like Clinton, Kerry, Feinsitein, Kennedy, (and many others) sent tens of thousands of young people to the meat grinders in Iraq on a pack of lies. They knew it was a pack of lies but they did it anyway because it would make for a nice campaign commercial.

[junior chįmp]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

[Crumpets]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

Honest question: How old were you during the build-up to the Iraq War? Everything you're saying is perfectly obvious to anyone who has had the benefit of 15 years of hindsight.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

"Everyone knew it was a lie, including Democrats and pundits with no national security clearance" is probably the most magnificent bit of historical revisionism I've heard in a long time, so kudos.

[junior chįmp]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

Honest question: How old were you during the build-up to the Iraq War? Everything you're saying is perfectly obvious to anyone who has had the benefit of 15 years of hindsight.

I entered high school in 2003 and graduated in 2007. I followed politics pretty intensely from a young age.

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

"Everyone knew it was a lie, including Democrats and pundits with no national security clearance" is probably the most magnificent bit of historical revisionism I've heard in a long time, so kudos.

The US Government lies all the time about everything...what surprises you about Iraq? Everyone knew it was BS but everyone figured it would be short, quick, and not very costly so the idea was...''well why not?''

That was the actual feeling at the time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

"Everyone knew it was a lie, including Democrats and pundits with no national security clearance" is probably the most magnificent bit of historical revisionism I've heard in a long time, so kudos.

The head of the Senate intelligent committee, Bob Graham, urged everyone to read the actual intelligence report. Hardly anyone did. He voted against the Iraq war because of the obvious lies in the report.

[junior chįmp]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

"Everyone knew it was a lie, including Democrats and pundits with no national security clearance" is probably the most magnificent bit of historical revisionism I've heard in a long time, so kudos.

The head of the Senate intelligent committee, Bob Graham, urged everyone to read the actual intelligence report. Hardly anyone did. He voted against the Iraq war because of the obvious lies in the report.

I remember that because I went to elementary, middle, and high school in Florida. Bob Graham was basically chased out of the state for just telling the truth: That the Iraq War was a pack of lies, everyone knew it was a pack of lies, and the Bush administration was using 9/11 to exploit the emotions of a scared public.

The weak and cowardly Democrats went along with it of course because they thought it would help them ''look tough'' and get them one step closer to that mythical ''moderate voter in suburban PA''

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Reason?! You need a reason to show even token amount of compassion for someone made in the image of God dying of a a horrid disease? Good grief.

They don't believe in universal sin or inherent fallibility. They believe that they are good and those who disagree are evil and it's as simple as that.

This describes your anti-abortion position perfectly.

Contrary to popular belief, one needn't be a dualistc ideologue to believe society shouldn't endorse the killing of babies.

A fetus in the first trimester or so (up to around 20 weeks) isn't remotely 'a baby' and making false claims does not make it so. 

If you want to believe its true, that's fine, you can be as unscientific as you like, but you have no right to impose this false belief on anybody who has a direct involvement.  If you think you do, ultimately it can only be on the basis that you believe you are good and anybody who disagrees with you on this is evil.

A woman who decides to have an abortion is not 'evil' but is simply an inherently fallible human and should not be punished or prevented by law from making her own choice.  If you want to speak out against a woman for doing so, like I spoke out against Krauthammer here, you're free to do so, but if you think you have any right to do more than that, you're far more over the line than I could ever
be.

When it comes right down to it, you see you're just like me.  I hope you're satisfied.

Also, your comment is also ironic given that Krauthammer argued for, enabled and cheer lead the killing of likely tens of thousands of actual babies.  I guess you were for babies before you were against them.

A trimester is 20 weeks now?  14 month pregnancies, whew!

There are plenty of reasons to be strongly opposed to something besides "I'm a good person and everyone who disagrees with me is evil."  Strongly opposing something doesn't remotely imply "You supported something I am strongly opposed to and that makes you evil and lol yay now you're dying of cancer!"

Do you rejoice over the death of everyone who isn't a pacifist, or just the ones who support wars you don't believe are good ideas? 

1.I wrote 'first trimester or so' not 'first trimester'.  If you feel you are in any position to tell me how to act (you seem to tell a lot of people how to act) then I suggest to you that you learn to read properly.  This wasn't even a matter of interpretation.

2.Your 'strong opposition' to abortion is based on the falsehood that fetus automatically = baby  and, in the process, you want to force  'inherently fallible' women to do something that is counter to their choice.  If you don't feel that you are "good" enough to tell other people what to do with their lives and if you don't feel that abortion is "evil", then why don't you leave people to make their own decisions?

3.I rejoice over the death of any sleazy, evil propagandist like Krauthmmer.  I think I made that clear many times.  I don't really know much about the views of anybody who is not in a position of influence or power, except for my personal friends, so I have no reason to have any opinion of any random person or their death, and I don't often have reason to hear about any random death.

I do believe abortion is evil.  That doesn't mean that everyone who has an abortion is complete evil with no redeeming qualities, or even more evil than most other people!  It's a judgement about the essential nature of the act itself in directly destroying life, not about the character of anyone involved in the act.

I don't believe we should have gone into the Iraq War. I had the same view at the time, but it wasn't completely self-evident. I went through the pros and cons in my mind; it wasn't like our policies in Iraq for the decade prior had been without harm to the Iraqi people, nor was having a tyrant in charge of their country. Would going to war make life better for Iraq and make the region more secure?  I didn't think the very real risk of making things much worse was worth it, but coming to the opposite conclusion was not unfathomable to me.    So perhaps you can see why the idea that coming to a different prudential judgement means someone is of necessity a "sleazy propogandist" who deserves to die makes very little sense to me.

[136or142]

Reason?! You need a reason to show even token amount of compassion for someone made in the image of God dying of a a horrid disease? Good grief.

They don't believe in universal sin or inherent fallibility. They believe that they are good and those who disagree are evil and it's as simple as that.

This describes your anti-abortion position perfectly.

Contrary to popular belief, one needn't be a dualistc ideologue to believe society shouldn't endorse the killing of babies.

A fetus in the first trimester or so (up to around 20 weeks) isn't remotely 'a baby' and making false claims does not make it so.  

If you want to believe its true, that's fine, you can be as unscientific as you like, but you have no right to impose this false belief on anybody who has a direct involvement.  If you think you do, ultimately it can only be on the basis that you believe you are good and anybody who disagrees with you on this is evil.

A woman who decides to have an abortion is not 'evil' but is simply an inherently fallible human and should not be punished or prevented by law from making her own choice.  If you want to speak out against a woman for doing so, like I spoke out against Krauthammer here, you're free to do so, but if you think you have any right to do more than that, you're far more over the line than I could ever
be.

When it comes right down to it, you see you're just like me.  I hope you're satisfied.

Also, your comment is also ironic given that Krauthammer argued for, enabled and cheer lead the killing of likely tens of thousands of actual babies.  I guess you were for babies before you were against them.

A trimester is 20 weeks now?  14 month pregnancies, whew!

There are plenty of reasons to be strongly opposed to something besides "I'm a good person and everyone who disagrees with me is evil."  Strongly opposing something doesn't remotely imply "You supported something I am strongly opposed to and that makes you evil and lol yay now you're dying of cancer!"

Do you rejoice over the death of everyone who isn't a pacifist, or just the ones who support wars you don't believe are good ideas?  

1.I wrote 'first trimester or so' not 'first trimester'.  If you feel you are in any position to tell me how to act (you seem to tell a lot of people how to act) then I suggest to you that you learn to read properly.  This wasn't even a matter of interpretation.

2.Your 'strong opposition' to abortion is based on the falsehood that fetus automatically = baby  and, in the process, you want to force  'inherently fallible' women to do something that is counter to their choice.  If you don't feel that you are "good" enough to tell other people what to do with their lives and if you don't feel that abortion is "evil", then why don't you leave people to make their own decisions?

3.I rejoice over the death of any sleazy, evil propagandist like Krauthmmer.  I think I made that clear many times.  I don't really know much about the views of anybody who is not in a position of influence or power, except for my personal friends, so I have no reason to have any opinion of any random person or their death, and I don't often have reason to hear about any random death.

I do believe abortion is evil.  That doesn't mean that everyone who has an abortion is complete evil with no redeeming qualities, or even more evil than most other people!  It's a judgement about the essential nature of the act itself in directly destroying life, not about the character of anyone involved in the act.

I don't believe we should have gone into the Iraq War. I had the same view at the time, but it wasn't completely self-evident. I went through the pros and cons in my mind; it wasn't like our policies in Iraq for the decade prior had been without harm to the Iraqi people, nor was having a tyrant in charge of their country. Would going to war make life better for Iraq and make the region more secure?  I didn't think the very real risk of making things much worse was worth it, but coming to the opposite conclusion was not unfathomable to me.    So perhaps you can see why the idea that coming to a different prudential judgement means someone is of necessity a "sleazy propogandist" who deserves to die makes very little sense to me.

1.Just as my contempt for Krauthammer is based on his acts.

2.Have you actually read any of what I posted that he wrote?

[junior chįmp]

I don't believe we should have gone into the Iraq War. I had the same view at the time, but it wasn't completely self-evident. I went through the pros and cons in my mind; it wasn't like our policies in Iraq for the decade prior had been without harm to the Iraqi people, nor was having a tyrant in charge of their country. Would going to war make life better for Iraq and make the region more secure?  I didn't think the very real risk of making things much worse was worth it, but coming to the opposite conclusion was not unfathomable to me.    So perhaps you can see why the idea that coming to a different prudential judgement means someone is of necessity a "sleazy propogandist" who deserves to die makes very little sense to me.

Such a tough decision for you to make from your couch. Everybody knew Iraq was a pack of lies...dont be so self-congratulatory. There's a reason so many younger users here dont understand why so many older Millennials have a hard time trusting or caring for the Democratic Party in this country and gravitate toward the Bernie wing even when voting straight Democrat seems to be the ''obvious choice.''

We already know how full of gobsh**te the Democratic party is....they shamelessly lied about the Iraq War...people like Biden had no problem going on TV and lying their ass off about a war that sent a million Iraqis to their death (lets be honest here....no American cares about the million Muslims dead of the Iraq War...only the dead Americans they pretend to care about on Veterans Day)

America lies all the time about everything. Never trust the government either under Trump or the hack that comes after or before Trump.

[136or142]

Krauthammer had no insider knowledge about Iraq. He believed the evidence he was presented along with the vast majority of Americans, including two of the last three Democratic nominees for President.

"I'm glad he's dying of cancer because he believed the evidence the President presented and argued for it in his columns" is not a better look for you.

This is nonsense. Bush lied. Republicans lied. Democrats lied. Everybody lied.

The only reason we went to Iraq was because both political parties....in their genius infinite wisdom....tough that the Iraq War would be short and quick. Of course...literally every expert in mid-east history said this wasn't true....the Bush administration and the cowardly Democrats in Congress just straight up ignored it. Everyone who voted for the Iraq War knew it was all lies but hey...it wasnt their kids going over there.

"Everyone knew it was a lie, including Democrats and pundits with no national security clearance" is probably the most magnificent bit of historical revisionism I've heard in a long time, so kudos.

How old are you?  If anybody has fallen for historical revisionism it's clearly you.

I'm 47 so I was 32 at the time of this sordid situation so I remember it quite well.

I don't mind engaging in this again for a little because I expected this might come up and I thought about the situation again.  I have on an old computer the discussions that back in 2002/2003 on IRC, so if needed I'm sure I could post them.

I still have no idea what the real motives behind the war were, it might have been regime change, it might have been simply warmongers wanting war.

After September 11, the Bush Administration steadily raised concerns about Iraq and their having WMD in violation of various U.N resolutions.  I don't doubt that they genuinely believed Saddam Hussein/Iraq had WMD.  The polls at this time showed an even 3 way split, I remember this from watching CNN pollster Bill Schneider: 1/3 of the nation wanted to go to war against Iraq,  1/3 didn't want to go to war, and 1/3 only if the U.N sanctioned it.

At this point, the fear campaign began.  Now Iraq didn't just have old WMD (that may have degraded, fwiw) but there were 6 lies that were either highly disputed or known to be lies at the time.  Unfortunately I don't think I remember all 6, but I wrote them down in IRC on my old computer.  The main ones were:

1.Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden behind September 11.  They never actually said this outright, but whenever the Bush Administration mentioned September 11, it was always followed by Saddam Hussein. This was a lie and it never made sense at the time because Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were known to be enemies.  The evidence presented for this claim was that Iraqi officials had a meeting with  Mohamed Atta.  There was never any substantial evidence presented this meeting ever took place.  Reading on wiki, it is now clear why no evidence was presented: even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17]  (He admitted this in 2007.)

2.That Saddam Hussein/Iraq was making new WMD.  No credible evidence to substantiate this was ever presented.

3.That Saddam Hussein/Iraq was in league with al-Qaeda with al-Qaeda to launch additional terrorist attacks on the U.S.  Again, see point 2 to see that this was based on nothing but lies or flimsy claims with no substantive backing.

4.I can't remember the other two, but the final kicker was that Saddam Hussein/Iraq were trying to develop nuclear weapons. This was based on some uranium cake that was bought by Saddam Hussein/Iraq from Niger (or as I believe W Bush said "from Africa.")  Again, this was completely knocked down before the start of the war.  If I recall correctly, this was what led the Bush Administration (likely under the direction of Dick Cheney) to out Valerie Plame as a CIA agent as revenge and very likely as a warning to others. (That Iraq bought the Uranium cake was real, but it had been shown conclusively that it could not be used for nuclear weapons purposes.)

As Condiliar Rice over acted at the time ""We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud."

So, here is the thing. I don't doubt that every administration tries to argue its policies in the best light possible.  When the latest jobs report came out, the Trump Administration trumpeted the 3.8% unemployment, but they didn't mention the Labor Force Participation rate declined even further (fwiw, their are arguments on both sides, as while the Participation rate declined, the overall net new jobs was decent at about 225,000.)  The thing is, I can look all this up.  Before the internet, journalists at major financial publications had access to all this.

When the lies about what Iraq/Saddam Hussein was supposedly up to came out, nobody could see the evidence for themselves except for a handful of U.S Senators.  The Administration directly lied or grossly distorted the evidence in order to create a climate of fear to lead 'the drumbeats of war.'

So, what was the evil piece of trash Krauthammer's role in this?   As the quotes and articles from him that I've posted here clearly show, he helped sell these lies as if they were facts and engaged in discrediting those who questioned the false claims.  Given the flimsiness of the claims made, Krauthammer's role in trying to discredit the people who doubted the claims shows he was a willing and active lying propagandist.

Not only that, he hyped up the fear and, worst of all, argued that anybody who opposed or questioned the war and the claims were unpatriotic.  Krauthammer is simply an evil warmonger and propagandist. Certainly not on the same level with Goebbels, but certainly in Goebbels' image.

After all the lies told on behalf of the war, 67% of Americans supported the war, and 33% opposed it. It's probably not quite this simple, but by and large the likeliest explanation was that those who, before this propaganda fear campaign, only supported the war with U.N sanction came to support it without U.N sanction.

[136or142]

I don't believe we should have gone into the Iraq War. I had the same view at the time, but it wasn't completely self-evident. I went through the pros and cons in my mind; it wasn't like our policies in Iraq for the decade prior had been without harm to the Iraqi people, nor was having a tyrant in charge of their country. Would going to war make life better for Iraq and make the region more secure?  I didn't think the very real risk of making things much worse was worth it, but coming to the opposite conclusion was not unfathomable to me.    So perhaps you can see why the idea that coming to a different prudential judgement means someone is of necessity a "sleazy propogandist" who deserves to die makes very little sense to me.

Such a tough decision for you to make from your couch. Everybody knew Iraq was a pack of lies...dont be so self-congratulatory. There's a reason so many younger users here dont understand why so many older Millennials have a hard time trusting or caring for the Democratic Party in this country and gravitate toward the Bernie wing even when voting straight Democrat seems to be the ''obvious choice.''

We already know how full of gobsh**te the Democratic party is....they shamelessly lied about the Iraq War...people like Biden had no problem going on TV and lying their ass off about a war that sent a million Iraqis to their death (lets be honest here....no American cares about the million Muslims dead of the Iraq War...only the dead Americans they pretend to care about on Veterans Day)

America lies all the time about everything. Never trust the government either under Trump or the hack that comes after or before Trump.

I don't forgive the Democrats, but I don't doubt they believe the original claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  They were simply either too lazy to read the report as Bob Graham urged them to do (I believe a total of 6 U.S Senators read the report, I could be wrong on that though) or they were cowed by the climate of fear and questioning of patriotism.

As Hillary Clinton later said (I think she was lying about this in terms of her role, but her argument is still correct) 'the Iraq war vote was not a vote in favor of the war.  It was a vote to authorize troops to go to Kuwait, in preparation for war. (or something like that)'  There was a motion that before this was voted on, before the Administration could start the war itself, they'd have to go back to Congress for a second vote.  This motion was voted down.  Afterwards Hillary Clinton said that she voted for the main bill because she agreed with placing troops in Kuwait and didn't want that defeated, but that if she had to do it again, given the defeat of the call for a second vote, that she would have voted against the main authorization, in order to force a second vote on the war itself, if necessary.

I doubt she was telling the truth, but her argument, that the authorization was not actually for the war itself, is true.

[junior chįmp]

I don't believe we should have gone into the Iraq War. I had the same view at the time, but it wasn't completely self-evident. I went through the pros and cons in my mind; it wasn't like our policies in Iraq for the decade prior had been without harm to the Iraqi people, nor was having a tyrant in charge of their country. Would going to war make life better for Iraq and make the region more secure?  I didn't think the very real risk of making things much worse was worth it, but coming to the opposite conclusion was not unfathomable to me.    So perhaps you can see why the idea that coming to a different prudential judgement means someone is of necessity a "sleazy propogandist" who deserves to die makes very little sense to me.

Such a tough decision for you to make from your couch. Everybody knew Iraq was a pack of lies...dont be so self-congratulatory. There's a reason so many younger users here dont understand why so many older Millennials have a hard time trusting or caring for the Democratic Party in this country and gravitate toward the Bernie wing even when voting straight Democrat seems to be the ''obvious choice.''

We already know how full of gobsh**te the Democratic party is....they shamelessly lied about the Iraq War...people like Biden had no problem going on TV and lying their ass off about a war that sent a million Iraqis to their death (lets be honest here....no American cares about the million Muslims dead of the Iraq War...only the dead Americans they pretend to care about on Veterans Day)

America lies all the time about everything. Never trust the government either under Trump or the hack that comes after or before Trump.

I don't forgive the Democrats, but I don't doubt they believe the original claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  They were simply either too lazy to read the report as Bob Graham urged them to do (I believe a total of 6 U.S Senators read the report, I could be wrong on that though) or they were cowed by the climate of fear and questioning of patriotism.

As Hillary Clinton later said (I think she was lying about this in terms of her role, but her argument is still correct) 'the Iraq war vote was not a vote in favor of the war.  It was a vote to authorize troops to go to Kuwait, in preparation for war. (or something like that)'  There was a motion that before this was voted on, before the Administration could start the war itself, they'd have to go back to Congress for a second vote.  This motion was voted down.  Afterwards Hillary Clinton said that she voted for the main bill because she agreed with placing troops in Kuwait and didn't want that defeated, but that if she had to do it again, given the defeat of the call for a second vote, that she would have voted against the main authorization, in order to force a second vote on the war itself.

I doubt she was telling the truth, but her argument, that the authorization was not actually for the war itself, is true.

Everyone knew Hillary lied her ass off about the Iraq War but the geniuses over at the Democratic Party thought that their ''models'' guaranteed a Hillary victory in 2016 so they didn't care. To this day....they still feel they are owed that election

[Calthrina950]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies. 

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

[136or142]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies.  

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

For what?  You must lead a very sheltered life.

[Calthrina950]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies.  

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

For what?  You must lead a very sheltered life.

For the bolded insult. That was completely uncalled for, and I don't take kindly to insults.

[136or142]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies.  

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

For what?  You must lead a very sheltered life.

For the bolded insult. That was completely uncalled for, and I don't take kindly to insults.

Those both seem to be literally true.  How can the truth be an insult?  Do you even know the literal definition of 'pathetic'?  (which is what I wrote)  Rather dishonest of you to not bold the full sentence.

Pathetic: arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.  Is that not true?  All your hand ringing here certainly suggests it is.

[Calthrina950]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies.  

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

For what?  You must lead a very sheltered life.

For the bolded insult. That was completely uncalled for, and I don't take kindly to insults.

Those both seem to be literally true.  How can the truth be an insult?  Do you even know the literal definition of 'pathetic'?  (which is what I wrote)  Rather dishonest of you to not bold the full sentence.

Pathetic: arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.  Is that not true?  All your hand ringing here certainly suggests it is.

At this point, I'm not sure how much we can accomplish here. This thread has already gone way off track, with abortion and the Iraq War in general dragged in, and I would not wish for things to get any more out of hand. Nor am I interested in arguing with you. I think we should leave this subject alone and move on.

[136or142]

It's amazing what this thread has come to. It's also very revealing of how someone can claim to be a Christian, or claim to be religious, yet express views that, in the eyes of many, would be considered contrary to the ideals of Christianity. Celebrating the death of other people, wishing harm on them, calling them vile terms, are all inherently anti-Christian acts, in my belief.

And I'm tired of your hand wringing.  Politics is inherently divisive.  As the line goes 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'  I don't see anything wrong with division as long as it's based on honesty. It's vile propagandists like Krauthammer who pollute politics with lies.  

I'm also tired of your calling me out while not actually stating my name, I don't care if you call me out by name, why are you too cowardly to do it?

I'm also tired of you claiming that I'm worse than most when there are opportunist racists in threads like this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293754.0

You are tiresome and pathetic (int the literal sense of the word) and I'm done with you.

Fine. I'm reporting your post, and I am done with you as well.

For what?  You must lead a very sheltered life.

For the bolded insult. That was completely uncalled for, and I don't take kindly to insults.

Those both seem to be literally true.  How can the truth be an insult?  Do you even know the literal definition of 'pathetic'?  (which is what I wrote)  Rather dishonest of you to not bold the full sentence.

Pathetic: arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.  Is that not true?  All your hand ringing here certainly suggests it is.

At this point, I'm not sure how much we can accomplish here. This thread has already gone way off track, with abortion and the Iraq War in general dragged in, and I would not wish for things to get any more out of hand. Nor am I interested in arguing with you. I think we should leave this subject alone and move on.

Fine with me.  Fare-the-well.

[DC Al Fine]

Still waiting on Adam's biblical exegesis about why Jesus wants us to cheer for cancer

[DC Al Fine]

Oh and while we're at it Adam what is your reasoning for your ridiculous assertion that:

"X is evil" (Shua)

Is morally equivalent to

"X is evil. So and so did X so I'm glad they're dying of cancer"

[136or142]

Still waiting on Adam's biblical exegesis about why Jesus wants us to cheer for cancer

Nothing to do with cancer specifically, everything dies, that's a fact.

[136or142]

Oh and while we're at it Adam what is your reasoning for your ridiculous assertion that:

"X is evil" (Shua)

Is morally equivalent to

"X is evil. So and so did X so I'm glad they're dying of cancer"

Because Shua isn't only arguing "X is evil" Shua is arguing X is evil therefore the person directly affected can have no say in the matter (whether or not to abort the fetus.)

Who is worse?  My views expressed here on Krauthammer should have no effect on him or his family, Shua wants to force on somebody something that will effect them for the rest of their lives.

I believe I've expressed most of this a number of times, though not as clearly as this, as this is why I engaged in the "debate" with Shua over whether a first trimester or so fetus is actually a life.  I honestly don't know how you could not have realized why I was making that point.  I bring this up here because I have no further interest in engaging in this "debate" again.  

I put "debate" in quotes, because, while I suppose this isn't completely settled science as, say, whether the world is round or whether Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, the evidence so far is very clear that a fetus does not develop higher brain wave functions until the 20th week or so, and therefore it can't honestly be compared to a baby.

So, I'm also not interested in 'what about this scenario..."  (if you wanted to bring that up). As the legal saying goes, "hard cases make bad law."  Gray areas can always be found, they don't alter that a fetus without higher brain wave functions is not equivalent to a living baby.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can we wait with "RIP the great man"/"good riddance" until he actually dies?