Al Qaida threat worse under Obama

[ConHog]

Obama praises his Marxist professors, appoints outright communists to political positions, loves Jeremiah Wright and what's-his-face...Bill Aires(?) that helped him start his political career as a community organizer, after setting off bombs and wishing he's done more...Obama seems to love people that hate America. Even his racist wife is just now becoming proud of this country.

Obama is a MARXIST! Get that through your thick ass head!

The ruling elite has arrived, my friends. Just like the Jeffersons....movin' on up!

Thick or thin...you can't handle the quote commands.

Clinton, as POTUS, signed the bill that said it was the goal of the United States to free the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That means, you OVERTHROW HIS ASS BY FORCE!

What part of this is hard for you nitwit Bush haters to underfuckinstand?

Ooops, I forgot! Obama doesn't want to catch Osama. He wants to invite him to a conference table where he can inform him as to what he should do to compensate for the pain and suffering he has inflicted on the American people.

So you don't have a clue? Well, at least that's sorted...


....dismissed....

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

 

[ConHog]

It is intellectually dishonest...cheating...lying...oh so liberal.

I could of swore I also read somewhere where Gunny said no more of it.

But all of those traits you listed perfectly describe Sangha

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....

But you do admit that altering a post to make it mean something entirely different than what the original poster meant is a dishonest tactic of debate . yes?

 

[Dr Grump]

I could of swore I also read somewhere where Gunny said no more of it.

But all of those traits you listed perfectly describe Sangha

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....

But you do admit that altering a post to make it mean something entirely different than what the original poster meant is a dishonest tactic of debate . yes?

No I don't. I think it can be funny as hell. It can be confusing to somebody who has just walked into the thread. However, the person whose original quote it was, and the person doing the changing, usually know who has done what. One could argue that the person who is changing the quote is losing the argument, or that the person's whose quote has been changed doesn't have a sense of humour. I usually find the person whose quote has been changed is the one who gets most annoyed, especially if the changed quote is a funny play on words and makes them look stupid.

I have both changed quotes and and had them changed and haven't given a shit either way...

 

[sangha]

I could of swore I also read somewhere where Gunny said no more of it.

But all of those traits you listed perfectly describe Sangha

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....

But you do admit that altering a post to make it mean something entirely different than what the original poster meant is a dishonest tactic of debate . yes?

Umm, here's what gunny said, you moron

Heheheh...

I only quoted that to which I wished to reply. Saving space and bandwidth, I was thinking of the overall welfare of the board, you see...

Well, I agree with you on that. I usually only quote what I'm responding to cause I hate scrolling through a thread where someone has written a book and everyone else has quoted it to reply. I consider it ommission rather than alteration. So far I've only had one poster whine that I didn't quote ALL his post and as it was the board's favorite Union cheerleader I considered the source and overlooked it.

It is still fine to post only that from a quote which you wish to respond to.

Which part of "It is still fine to post only that from a quote which you wish to respond to" do you not understand?

 

[Dr Grump]

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Obama is no more a socialist than you or I. He is both - for capitialism and some socialist policy. That is the norm with the rest of the world including NZ and Aussie. A nice mixture of both is fine.

I have no problem with you quoting those points....

 

[ConHog]

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....

But you do admit that altering a post to make it mean something entirely different than what the original poster meant is a dishonest tactic of debate . yes?

No I don't. I think it can be funny as hell. It can be confusing to somebody who has just walked into the thread. However, the person whose original quote it was, and the person doing the changing, usually know who has done what. One could argue that the person who is changing the quote is losing the argument, or that the person's whose quote has been changed doesn't have a sense of humour. I usually find the person whose quate has been changed is the one who gets most annoyed, especially if the changed quote is a funny play on words and makes them look stupid.

I have both changed quotes and and had them changed and haven't given a shit either way...

That's all fine when you don't want to have a serious debate, but didn't you just last night tell me you wanted to have real debates?

 

[ConHog]

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Obama is no more a socialist than you or I. He is both - for capitialism and some socialist policy. That is the norm with the rest of the world including NZ and Aussie. A nice mixture of both is fine.

I have no problem with you quoting those points....

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

 

[Dr Grump]

That's all fine when you don't want to have a serious debate, but didn't you just last night tell me you wanted to have real debates?

Most of the time. I don't believe in black and white, there are shades of grey....

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

Yes, but the term 'socialist' has an exact meaning. He doesn't fit the criteria. If he believes in govt ownership and spreading the wealth and NO capitalism, then you could be right. But he certainly believes in capitalism, so therefore doesn't fit the bill....

 

[sangha]

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Obama is no more a socialist than you or I. He is both - for capitialism and some socialist policy. That is the norm with the rest of the world including NZ and Aussie. A nice mixture of both is fine.

I have no problem with you quoting those points....

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

Says the man whose paycheck (and training, and medical care, and other benefits) comes from the govt

 

[ConHog]

Obama is no more a socialist than you or I. He is both - for capitialism and some socialist policy. That is the norm with the rest of the world including NZ and Aussie. A nice mixture of both is fine.

I have no problem with you quoting those points....

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

Says the man whose paycheck (and training, and medical care, and other benefits) comes from the govt

The military is not a socialist endeavor

 

[ConHog]

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

Yes, but the term 'socialist' has an exact meaning. He doesn't fit the criteria. If he believes in govt ownership and spreading the wealth and NO capitalism, then you could be right. But he certainly believes in capitalism, so therefore doesn't fit the bill....

As you said, there are shades of gray. Does he believe in total government ownership of everything? No. but he does believe in a state directed economy. He doesn't trust capitalism to run on its own.

 

[asaratis]

Obama praises his Marxist professors, appoints outright communists to political positions, loves Jeremiah Wright and what's-his-face...Bill Aires(?) that helped him start his political career as a community organizer, after setting off bombs and wishing he's done more...Obama seems to love people that hate America. Even his racist wife is just now becoming proud of this country.

Obama is a MARXIST! Get that through your thick ass head!

The ruling elite has arrived, my friends. Just like the Jeffersons....movin' on up!

Thick or thin...you can't handle the quote commands.

Clinton, as POTUS, signed the bill that said it was the goal of the United States to free the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That means, you OVERTHROW HIS ASS BY FORCE!

What part of this is hard for you nitwit Bush haters to underfuckinstand?

Ooops, I forgot! Obama doesn't want to catch Osama. He wants to invite him to a conference table where he can inform him as to what he should do to compensate for the pain and suffering he has inflicted on the American people.

So you don't have a clue? Well, at least that's sorted...


....dismissed....

Well, that profoundly intelligent reply certainly settles the issues here. My gawd! Where did you go to school? Don't tell me. Government school then a liberal professor's club.

If you can't argue a point, you simply say that your opponent is clueless.

However, more often than not it is the lack of a sustainable, logical, truthful argument that prompts the easy out such as you took there. You would not fare well in seriously critiqued debate. That argument just doesn't pass muster.

 

[sangha]

Oh, he's quite a bit more of a socialist than I my friend.............

Says the man whose paycheck (and training, and medical care, and other benefits) comes from the govt

The military is not a socialist endeavor

What isn't socialist about the military?

It is owned and controlled by the govt. It is non-profit. It is for the good of the people.

Oh, I noticed you had no comment on Gunners' comment on editing a post.

 

[asaratis]

Obama praises his Marxist professors, appoints outright communists to political positions, loves Jeremiah Wright and what's-his-face...Bill Aires(?) that helped him start his political career as a community organizer, after setting off bombs and wishing he's done more...Obama seems to love people that hate America. Even his racist wife is just now becoming proud of this country.

Obama is a MARXIST! Get that through your thick ass head!

The ruling elite has arrived, my friends. Just like the Jeffersons....movin' on up!

Thick or thin...you can't handle the quote commands.

Clinton, as POTUS, signed the bill that said it was the goal of the United States to free the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That means, you OVERTHROW HIS ASS BY FORCE!

What part of this is hard for you nitwit Bush haters to underfuckinstand?

Ooops, I forgot! Obama doesn't want to catch Osama. He wants to invite him to a conference table where he can inform him as to what he should do to compensate for the pain and suffering he has inflicted on the American people.

So you don't have a clue? Well, at least that's sorted...


....dismissed....

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

...and you fucked up on all three points:

Obama is a Marxist.

Oh, don't make me look it up. It's the Iraqi Liberation Act or some such thing. Bill Clinton signed it. You doubt me? You google it.

You don't know jack schidt about what would happen if Osama was captured.

 

[asaratis]

So you don't have a clue? Well, at least that's sorted...


....dismissed....

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Oh, don't make me look it up. It's the Iraqi Liberation Act or some such thing. Bill Clinton signed it. You doubt me? You google it.

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

I knew I'd find it before you did. It was 1998.

 

[asaratis]

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....

But you do admit that altering a post to make it mean something entirely different than what the original poster meant is a dishonest tactic of debate . yes?

Umm, here's what gunny said, you moron

Well, I agree with you on that. I usually only quote what I'm responding to cause I hate scrolling through a thread where someone has written a book and everyone else has quoted it to reply. I consider it ommission rather than alteration. So far I've only had one poster whine that I didn't quote ALL his post and as it was the board's favorite Union cheerleader I considered the source and overlooked it.

It is still fine to post only that from a quote which you wish to respond to.

Which part of "It is still fine to post only that from a quote which you wish to respond to" do you not understand?

That means you are dodging the remainder of the quote. It's a candy assed thing to do.

 

[ConHog]

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Oh, don't make me look it up. It's the Iraqi Liberation Act or some such thing. Bill Clinton signed it. You doubt me? You google it.

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

I knew I'd find it before you did. It was 1998.

Nice find, I did not remember that one.

 

[sangha]

Obama is no marxist. Socialist? Yes, Marxist? No

I know of no Bill that Clinton signed in regards to over throwing Saadaam, but certainly Clinton would have done so if given enough provocation

Osama is a dead man if US forces find him, he won't be coming to trial, not even Obama sympathizes with the Muslim plight that much.

I quoted you Gump cuz I wanted to address those three points, and didn't feel like diffing for the original quote, not because I am disagreeing with you.

Oh, don't make me look it up. It's the Iraqi Liberation Act or some such thing. Bill Clinton signed it. You doubt me? You google it.

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

I knew I'd find it before you did. It was 1998.

The Iraq Liberation Act says nothing about the US invading Iraq or overthrowing it's govt.

 

[ConHog]

Oh, don't make me look it up. It's the Iraqi Liberation Act or some such thing. Bill Clinton signed it. You doubt me? You google it.

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

I knew I'd find it before you did. It was 1998.

The Iraq Liberation Act says nothing about the US invading Iraq or overthrowing it's govt.

More dishonesty from you, imagine that. He said that Clinton signed a bill that supported over throwing Saddam.. HE was correct. Can you ever admit that you are wrong about anything?

Look junior, this is important, to be an effective debtor, you MUST be willing to admit defeat when you have lost. YOU never do.