darkemoregan

I'm working on getting my bolognese sauce recipe down, and one of the recipes I have calls for using a "good dry red wine". Any recommendations?

Oliver North NEVER mentioned Bin Laden at any point. Why do cons keep bringing this myth up?

Yes. I've seen a couple of people on here that STILL believe it's true.

Because he couldn't pick up a tranny at a gay bar?

Sure seems like it. He's got this fixation on trannies and homosexuals. Maybe because he's scared of his own sexuality?

I keep seeing this little rumor going around saying that during the Iran-Contra scandal, North said that Osama Bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. But everything I've found disproves this. And that includes Oliver North himself saying that he never mentioned OBL.

So where is that quote?

Just curious. When I went to check the sources of teh exchange this is what I came across:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

This link is just the summation of all that I found.

Was watching it and noticed that Jon Stewart plays devil's advocate to both sides. I've noticed that Jon Stewart also always his guests to answer the questions instead of shouting them down (ala Fox) or interrupting them with another question (like CNN).

I see a lot of people on here identifying themselves as cons and as republicans, but when asked, a good majority have no military experience. They have no clue what Bush's policies are really like. I asked this of Jon C and his response was that he was too important, too rich to serve. Well, that's what I got from his answer, because he never really answered any of my questions. And he's not the only one who's done that. A lot of them keep coming up with that answer. I'm too important or too rich or too whatever, to serve my country. Yet, they love to criticize those of us that have served as being too poor and out of options. And then they complain when thopse of us hthat have served call them on it.

Cons are such funny, impotent little people.

I asked a question on here a few hours ago and listed FACTS to support my argument. Yet all the cons could do was claim I was lying. Yet they didn't post anything that backed up their claims. Why is that?

Let's look at the facts surrounding the run-up to the Iraq invasion:

Iraq was involved in 9/11. Fact: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. But with loads of innuendo and doublespeak, the Bush Administration made it seem that way.

Ahmed Chalabi was a great candidate to run Iraq. Sure, if you don't mind a convicted felon in power. Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement in the late 80's. He's wanted in Jordan. And he was handpicked by Bush to run Iraq. So where is he know? We've raided his offices several times due to the fact that they are suspect of helping the insurgency.

Iraq had mobile weapons labs. No. Those were mobile weather labs sold by the British in the late 90's. And the british have confirmed that there were NO modifications as the White House as stated.

Iraq has WMDs. So far zero. I know that repubs/cons will be screaming about this one, but those stockpiles that have been found WERE accounted for by the U.N. inspectors. Even the White House has denied the findings.

Another coward scared to have an intelligent deabte and is scared of posting a profile on here.

Yes, there was a stockpile of WMDs found. But the Bush Administration came forward and said it was a non-issue because they were too old and that they weren't the WMDs that Bush went to war for. That, in essence, showed that Saddam had WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War and up to Gulf War 1 and were therefor a non-factor in our decision to go to war. So why do cons still bring it up?

The Republicans will only raise the Minimum Wage IF they get to cut the estate tax. Whereas they have no problem raising their own wages.

I know that before a species is classified there is usually another local name for it. Can anyone help me?

Basic facts: The Taliban now control 1/3 of Afghanistan. A Taliban-like regime is about to take control of Somalia. Iraq is heading toward a civil war. Guns and bombs aren't winning this. Why won't you admit that you were wrong on HOW to fight this war?

Come on, it's a knock off of an earlier novel and all it's supposed "facts" are anything but...