1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[maineman]

Wait? Aren't you the one that DEMANDS links to things you claim you never said? And if we do not go find them you deny you did say them? He provides the links and your response is not " ohh I am wrong" it is" your obsessed"?

showing up late to a gunfight armed with your fingernail clippers again, I see???

what a little ***** you are, RGS.... like my ex.

 

[M14 Shooter]

showing up late to a gunfight armed with your fingernail clippers again, I see???

what a little ***** you are, RGS.... like my ex.

Pardon me while I laugh at your superior intellect.

 

[ReillyT]

Please stop. Oh... Oh... please...no more.

 

[Shogun]

Please stop. Oh... Oh... please...no more.

Yea.. Im with ReillyT.


just stop.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yea.. Im with ReillyT.


just stop.

I agree maineman should quit while he is ahead. He had a point bitching about having his mother called names. He has NO point and no ground to stand on claiming he does not insult, belittle or name call other posters.

 

[maineman]

I agree maineman should quit while he is ahead. He had a point bitching about having his mother called names. He has NO point and no ground to stand on claiming he does not insult, belittle or name call other posters.

now...if you could find a quote from me that claimed that, that would be real nice.

I'll wait.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am unaware of anything I have ever written to you that would require an apology...so hey...keep it up. I think folks who feel compelled to insult other people's mothers earn the tacit reputation they deserve.

and your adolescent schoolyard taunts help to solidity it.

There we go, now spin away.

 

[maineman]

There we go, now spin away.

no spinning necessary. As I said to you in a PM, IF I had said to M14 some comment that was derrogatory about someone, let's say, hypothetically, his wife, let's say, and her oral prowess, let's say, and how I found it pleasing, let's say....THAT would certainly be something that would deserve an apology. I have no intention of ever apologizing to anyone for calling them anything on an internet message board..... I get called things every day here.... and am not demanding apologies left and right. He crossed the line when he brought family members into the discussion. I crossed no such line.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have no intention of ever apologizing to anyone for calling them anything on an internet message board.....

But Skippy will certainly whine and cry when someone does it to him.

and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the ******* womb.

bad form.... you should learn to show a little more respect for your elders, sonny. Let's not make a habit of this.

What a maroon.

 

[maineman]

But Skippy will certainly whine and cry when someone does it to him.







What a maroon.

did I ask you to apologize for calling me skippy?

you and your buddy RGS really need to take an ESL course, I would think!

 

[M14 Shooter]

did I ask you to apologize for calling me skippy?

Nope - though your prissy ass has been whining and crying about ever since I started.

What's the matter, Big Man? Can't handle a little name calling?

 

[Shogun]

Is anyone on topic anymore or is the shit talking ripe for replanting in the taunting area?

Please, gentlemen.

 

[maineman]

Nope - though your prissy ass has been whining and crying about ever since I started.

What's the matter, Big Man? Can't handle a little name calling?

I can handle name calling all day and all night, and I can name call for the same period.

Bringing mothers in is not good. I haven't brought your mother into the discussion, or your wife, so really.... get over it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can handle name calling all day and all night

Then tell me, princess, why did you post:

and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the ******* womb.

bad form.... you should learn to show a little more respect for your elders, sonny. Let's not make a habit of this.

Sounds like whining to me.

Obviously, you dont have the basic metal capacity to even be honest with yourelf. It must be that chronic cranial-rectal inversion you suffer from.
I hear that's genetic -- one wonders how yo' momma manages to get around in that wheelchair.

Bringing mothers in is not good.

Cry me a river.
Yo' momma obviously neglected you, else you wouldn't be so maladjusted and loathe your own existence to the point where you need to come here to so very mindlessly self-sodomize your credibility as sentient being.

 

[Shogun]

I might be new to the scene here but...


The last batch of posts are off topic and belong in the Taunting forum. Please, gentlemen. Neither of you are impressing anyone by acting childish in this forum. I'm a big fan of free speech and have no problem letting you both choke each other..... in the correct forum.


por favore? with sugar and cherries on top?

 

[Dr Grump]

Apparently, you dont understand the difference between implication and inference, how implication is a deliberate act, and therefore to show that there is implication, you must show intent.

I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove. Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are. Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so. Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that. You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything. There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70% of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.

BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists. Why? I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.

As the desert said to the grain of sand...


See above.

There are quite a few posts on this board where I have admitted to being wrong or compliemented a poster from another political persuasion on their point. Why do I get the impression if I trolled through your 450+ posts I won't find ONE occasion where you have done the same? Having posted on messageboards for the best part of six years I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove.

Hopefully not.

Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are.

You can argue that all you want.
But, again, if you are arguing that they are -deliberately- suggesting something with what they say, then you need to show that they -intended- to make that suggestion.

Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so.

Except that there was physical evidence to contradict their statements.
Whoops.

Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that.

Of course I do. -I- can read, and what -I- read shows that the Administration tried to link Iraq and AQ.

And why do I believe that, other than the fact that I can read?

Simple: Its not necessary to link Iraq and 9/11 to justify going after Iraq in terms of the greater war on terror, which is what the Administration was doing at the time.

You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything.

Except that it proves you cannot show that they ever intendeed to imply the Iraq-9/11 link.

Remember:
The claim was that Bush lied about the Iraq-9/11 link.
To prove a 'misleading' lie, you need to prove that the administration intentionally suggested something it knew was not true.

You can't do that. Period.

There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70% of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.

Except, of course, the evidence that shows this was implied by the administration rather than inferred by the population

BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists.

That's right - because its not my claim that the people believed it for any reason whatsoever. In forcing you to prove your theory, I'm not required to provide an altrenate theory to replace yours..

I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.

As opposed to your "Its my opinion that Bush lied, even thought I cannot prove it, and I hate having to defend my opinion especially when I know I can't prove it" attitude?
Spare me YOUR holier-than-thouness.

I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...

Look in the morror, bub.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can argue that all you want.
But, again, if you are arguing that they are -deliberately- suggesting something with what they say, then you need to show that they -intended- to make that suggestion.

No I don't. I'm offering my opinion. That is my opinion. No proof is necessary. Having seen how this admin operates over the past seven years, I believe they deliberately manipulated the situation. Can I prove that? No. Doesn't mean I am wrong. Doesn't mean I am right either...

Except that there was physical evidence to contradict their statements.
Whoop.

And I believe there is enough anecdotal evidence to support my opinion in that they tried to connect AQ with Iraq, which vicariously connects Iraq with 9-11. And if you can't see that connection, you are being deliberately obtuse (this is NOT an opinion it is a fact).

Of course I do. -I- can read, and what -I- read shows that the Administration tried to link Iraq and AQ.

See above.

Simple: Its not necessary to link Iraq and 9/11 to justify going after Iraq in terms of the greater war on terror, which is what the Administration was doing at the time.

I disagree. Iraq had absolutely no connection with any terrorist organisation that was threatening the US. The Admin knew that, so had to draw an analogy that would back up their actions in Iraq because they knew the US public would not buy it.

Except that it proves you cannot show that they ever intendeed to imply the Iraq-9/11 link.

I have never said otherwise. Mine is an opinion....

Remember:
The claim was that Bush lied about the Iraq-9/11 link.
To prove a 'misleading' lie, you need to prove that the administration intentionally suggested something it knew was not true.

I need to prove no such thing with an opinion. I think maybe, just maybe, Cheney might have honestly thought Iraq might have had something to do with 9-11, but in reality and think the man is a cynic, coward and warmonger, whose only God is the almight greenback.

Except, of course, the evidence that shows this was implied by the administration rather than inferred by the population.

Never said otherwise..

That's right - because its not my claim that the people believed it for any reason whatsoever. In forcing you to prove your theory, I'm not required to provide an altrenate theory to replace yours.

I'm asking you for your opinion, which is above and beyond the current scope of our argument. I am asking you why you thought that figure came about. If you CAN'T answer, no harm, no foul. Does make me wonder if you truly believe in what you are arguing about though...

As opposed to your "Its my opinion that Bush lied, even thought I cannot prove it, and I hate having to defend my opinion especially when I know I can't prove it" attitude?.

This is a messageboard, not a court of law. When it comes to politics most posts are on opinions - what was said, what was meant by a statement, how one statement relates to a previous statement etc. Politicians are surrounded by spindoctors, so to think they are actually ever going to come out and admit to wrongdoing is simply naive to the max. I base my opinions on former and current actions of politicians - how they have handled certain situations and whether they are trustworthy.

Look in the morror, bub.

As stated, I have in the past admitted mistakes and complimented opposition posters on their posts. Can you say the same? If so, I retract my statement, if not I stand by it. I think I'm on the money. As said, I have come across your type before. Everybody else is wrong, and I am right....

 

[maineman]

well said, Dr. Grump...

this argument with M14 long ago became some form of macho mental masturbation for him.... your opinions are as well founded as the next guy's, and I share them. We both have explained them all we need to. Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.

 

[Annie]

...

As stated, I have in the past admitted mistakes and complimented opposition posters on their posts. Can you say the same? If so, I retract my statement, if not I stand by it. I think I'm on the money. As said, I have come across your type before. Everybody else is wrong, and I am right....

If so, when? I have, many a time. I recognize that sometimes I can be overly self-righteous, I've missed your posts on the same...