Duplicate post, so I'll just say...

OBJECT DESKTOP 2009 is out!  YAY! 

You served up a hanging curve ball there, but I'll be good & just say it's actually Object Desktop 2009.  And I agree, "YAY!"

Which was predicated on lies the administration knew were lies even as they were telling them.  Sigh.

Here was one of many articles about the meeting between Richard Armey and Dick Cheney when it happened.

And here is one of many articles revealing the lies (and utter bullshit) Cheney told at that meeting.

And lest someone claim that these are somehow "left-wing biased sources" the quotes are from then GOP House Majority Leader Richard Armey himself,  the very man Cheney lied to...in his own words.

Of course you have to change your tune now, when your own links prove you wrong.  But it is exactly the point.  Clearly you like some wars - irregardless of what the UN does - and not others.  And the only qualifier is who starts them.  WHich makes you a liberal and a hypocrite - but then I repeat myself.

I have mischaracterized nothing.  You just have to keep changing your story to fit the proof in front of you.  By the time this is over, I am sure you are going to be urging Obama to bomb the hell out of some other miscreant.  Like all good pacifists do.  Your problem is that your "story" just does not fit your facts, and I am just using them to show you that.  Opinions of course dont require facts, so I doubt you will change yours.

Do you even read what you quote?  Apparently not.  Did we start another war on June 6, 1944? August 7,. 1942? October 20, 1944?  Shazaam!  I thought it was all WWII!  But now we have WWII, WWIII, WWIV, WWV, etc (since I merely listed 3, not 30 invasions).  Read your quote again.  The war was already on.

Nope!  Wrong again!  Nothing to do with peer reviews.  WIkipedia itself.  Nice starting place, but not the final place.  Better re-read that one.

That shows why you like being wrong.  I am sure Dan Blather cited his sources - the ones he made up?  yea that works!  Fox News is better than the rest, cause at least they try to get the facts right.  And dont create their own.  You are getting comical as you get desperate.

Police dont fight wars (not even in the police action of Korea).  No, you are no pacifist.  A dangerous war monger that needs no justification to bomb the hell out of anyone, except to know who wants to do it.  Bush was never that much of a war monger.  Thank god reason still prevails on the right, because the left are going to nuke the next country that gives them the finger.

The article you link to merely documents that the Cheney/Armey meeting took place.

I would trust Armey to be truthful (to the extent security clearances permit) - I've always admired him.  However, he's hardly the only one to say, "Had I known then what I know now..." - even Hillary wouldn't back down about voting for the war resolution until the primary campaign, though, and I strongly suspect she had more knowledge of the intelligence than most Senators.

So because Armey (who knows Cheney is STILL in office during this interview) doesn't actually say the "L" word, we now need to debate the meaning of the word LIE here?  Numberous other accounts from less diplomatic members of the GOP White House have used the L word.  As have many of the Democratic Senators who were in those same briefings.  I just pointed out the watershed moment.

Clinton LIED about getting blown by his intern.  This was to keep from being killed by his WIFE.  I have always condemned Clinto for this.

Cheney LIED about Iraq and Saddam.  This was to start a WAR than sent almost a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to the very company he resigned from to become VP (and will no doubt join again when he is legally allowed to).  I condemn him for this as well.

Now, both of these are lies.  One lie forever ruined a President's legacy.  The other lie got 4,000+ brave, loyal American servicemen killed.

And I can honestly say I'm more pissed about our dead soldiers and looted treasury.

Again, you ascribe to me positions and statements that come from your warped view of me, not from anything I've said or supported. 

As far as what I will support and what I will not, I will take that as it comes.  I won't be following Obama blindly.  As I've listed many times in this thread, I've supported AND condemned military actions under Democrat AND Republican administrations.

They don't have to create their own facts.  They get their talking points created for them--straight from the Bush White House! 

Seriously, don't get me wrong.  While I agree that sometimes their basic news coverage is just fine (how can you "spin" a train crash, after all?), O'Reilly and Hannity (and their ilk) in particular are ABSURDLY biased. 

But I'll do you the credit of assuming you can separate the real wheat from their chaff.

I nominate you for Secretary of the Department of Redundancy Department.

10%, up from ~7%.  Most of us would love to be invested in such a company.  Apple made $1B on revenue of $7B last quarter.  What is your point?

"Quotes" indicate their own words.  Outside of quotes are the writers opinion.

Sorry, I am not Bil Clinton, and changing the issue is a popular tactic. Sorry, I wont play that game.  Clearly your opinion of what is stated does not match the facts.  But you are entitled to your opinion.  Just dont claim they are facts.

This world.  Have you seen their 4th quarter profits?  You have!  Shazaam!  WHat are tonights lottery numbers!

No, you stated you support Kosovo, even though it was not sanctioned by the UN.  WHy?  Because a democrat did it?  So if Obama starts one, you will support it?  You have indicated so.  Your words not mine.  I merely asked the question.  And as you have already indicated you like wars started by democrats, one can assume intelligently what your answer will be.  But you answer it - after the fact.  It is easy to say "I would never!", but the truth is you already have.  You have a pattern.

Proof please.  Facts need confirmation.  I doubt you have any though.  As none exist.

Well, I did assume you knew the difference between news and commentary programs.  That assumption is apparently incorrect.  But then you do not know what a pacifist is either.

A REAL news reporter would have checked them (but I do understand that since there are none, he has no roll models to follow).

Single Instance?  I did not provide a litany of them for brevity sake.  But we even have a more recent one.  Palin and Africa!  Damn, it is hard debating people that are google impaired.

Incorrect.  I have never said anything of the kind. So quote me back, or stop lying. 

Incorrect AGAIN.  I supported the first Gulf War, which, if you recall, was started by Bush Sr. a REPUBLICAN.  And I don't support the war started by his son.

You don't even know me, so how could you know what my position was BEFORE or DURING these conflicts?  Again, assumptions based on your invention of me, not actually me.   I supported action in Kosovo, before, during, and after.  The same for the first gulf war.  While I would have supported the removal of Saddam with some carefully placed cruise missiles, I didn't support invading Iraq the second time.  Not did I support Russia's recent actions, before, during, or after.

Incorrect AGAIN.  This was a widely covered story, so you can easily Google this and get a hundred links yourself.  But here's a link with the former GOP Bush White House Press Secretary saying IN HIS OWN WORDS what I just told you.  It's a minute or so into the commentary portion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D08K7Q6hyE

While the SOURCE reported by FOX NEWS about Palin not knowing Africa was a fictitious adviser's name, the STORY that she didn't know the difference is still accurate and confirmed.  So while the name was wrong, the story was true.

Either way, you just defeated your own point that Fox News is "better than" the rest of the MSM, as they make mistakes too...like human beings do.