Happy New Year! More Freedom Exists

[r3volut!on]

Jim, it's really unfortunate that you have to resort to insults. I think we can rise above that, but if it's the only way you can retain superiority in a debate, count me out.

If you actually showed an openness, a willingness to explore our "retarded" ideas, instead of going on the offensive, maybe some links already would have been provided.

However, you give the impression that no matter what you are here to shoot the "libs" down.

Not much point, as far as I can tell, to make any effort debating you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But it is backed up with factual data, unlike your theory. And I most likely wouldn't believe it if it wasn't for the mountains upon mountains of factual data backing up the events.

so, in other words, I need to provide numerous pieces of 'reputable' news sources, signed affidavits, and recently released classified data before you will believe anything that remotely appears 'liberal'. Thanks, now that I know you will only believe that which you want to and disregard that which you don't like I'll stop trying to debate shit with you.

Did we ever "help another country arm kids and beat and torture people"?

and, unlike the spin YOU are putting on things, I'm saying that little kids killed and died with those very same weapons. Did we arm the kids personally? hell no, and I know damn well that I didn't say that, what I did say was that those people in the US government that provided arms to nicaraguan rebels, south vietnamese forces, east timor, and jakarta KNEW that kids would be involved, it is a foregone conclusion and to disbelieve otherwise makes you a naive fool.

Don't gun manafacturers know people are going to shoot guns? Then they should be held accountable for every murder committed, no? It's all a conspiracy!!!

your fallacious argument doesn't work jim, its already been ruled on (a ruling this liberal supports) that the manufacturers are not responsible for how people handle their weapons and actions and it doesn't change anything in regards to the topic at hand here.

Shoot, I'll even take a few wacky websites at this point, I'm bored and it'll make for some entertaining reading!

why should I bother to provide you with 'entertaining reading' jim? You've stated as much that you will only believe reputable sources. Your standards for reputable sources simply limits your viewpoints on things because you regard all others as wacky liberal bullshit.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
Jim, it's really unfortunate that you have to resort to insults. I think we can rise above that, but if it's the only way you can retain superiority in a debate, count me out.

If you actually showed an openness, a willingness to explore our "retarded" ideas, instead of going on the offensive, maybe some links already would have been provided.

However, you give the impression that no matter what you are here to shoot the "libs" down.

Not much point, as far as I can tell, to make any effort debating you.

Well, it was real unfortunate that you chose to jump into a debate between DK and I, offering your opinion on the way I post rather than staying on topic. Facts are too much for you to deal with?

Why would I have a willingness to explore retarded ideas? If it sounds too hard to believe, and facts can't be presented, then I don't believe it! It's really very simple.

I really don't give a shit if you like the way I post or not. I'm certainly not here to be your friend, and if we are going to be discussing politics and war - I'll continue to do so based on facts rather than conspiracy theories.

 

[r3volut!on]

Well, it was real unfortunate that you chose to jump into a debate between DK and I, offering your opinion on the way I post rather than staying on topic. Facts are too much for you to deal with?

ummm...actually, i was debating this with you long before DK entered...but that's okay.

Go steelers!

 

[eric]

I am still waiting to hear about my outrageous claims.

 

[r3volut!on]

forget it...you took my comment out of context.

What I meant was that, from a liberal point of view, many of the things that conservatives say seem every bit as outrageous as liberal ideas seem to conservatives. I wasn't pointing to any specific comments, just the fact that opposing sides in an argument will often see the opposition's claims as outrageous.

whatever...i'm not here to pick fights.

 

[lomadearena]

And more Americans will die in Iraq for Bush's lies.

 

[jimnyc]

so, in other words, I need to provide numerous pieces of 'reputable' news sources, signed affidavits, and recently released classified data before you will believe anything that remotely appears 'liberal'. Thanks, now that I know you will only believe that which you want to and disregard that which you don't like I'll stop trying to debate shit with you.

Another one with reading issues! I CLEARLY stated that there was planty of factual evidence to backup the events of the revolutionary war. In your case, I simply asked for proof, and never said a damn thing about how much was necessary. One reputable link/article would be sufficient.

and, unlike the spin YOU are putting on things, I'm saying that little kids killed and died with those very same weapons. Did we arm the kids personally? hell no, and I know damn well that I didn't say that, what I did say was that those people in the US government that provided arms to nicaraguan rebels, south vietnamese forces, east timor, and jakarta KNEW that kids would be involved, it is a foregone conclusion and to disbelieve otherwise makes you a naive fool.

Sorry, no spin here, I quoted you word for word. What you're saying now IS NOT what you originally stated. Still opinionated, but at least demanding facts had you 'right' your spin somewhat.

Oh, and fuck you for calling me a fool. Ok then asswipe, show us proof that they KNEW kids would be involved. Selling your pretty little rocks won't help you, and no spiritual healing is going to provide you with the data that doesn't exist.

your fallacious argument doesn't work jim, its already been ruled on (a ruling this liberal supports) that the manufacturers are not responsible for how people handle their weapons and actions and it doesn't change anything in regards to the topic at hand here.

Oh, I see, it's only ok to interpret it that way when it supports your argument. The US sold them weapons, period. The receiving countries are 100% responsible for what they do with them. Your assumptions about the knowledge of what they would do with them is based solely on your opinion.

why should I bother to provide you with 'entertaining reading' jim? You've stated as much that you will only believe reputable sources. Your standards for reputable sources simply limits your viewpoints on things because you regard all others as wacky liberal bullshit.

In other words, you can't find anything to backup your worthless opinions. Thanks for proving my point, again.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by lomadearena
And more Americans will die in Iraq for Bush's lies.

Which lie is this specifically that Bush has told?

 

[r3volut!on]

Which lie is this specifically that Bush has told?

I think one of the main lies told by the Bush Administration was that there were WMD. If you will recall, the threat of WMD was the original reason why a war in Iraq was absolutely necessary. I don't think I need to provide any links to support the idea that no WMD were ever found.

Another lie that comes to mind was the assertion that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda, and therefore was somehow involved in 9-11. To this date I have seen no reputable evidence to support that claim.

And one last lie: Mission Accomplished. What was THAT all about?

 

[lomadearena]

Bush did say "Saddam did not have ties to 9/11 or Bin Ladin.

He started this war for his personal reasons. Remember this quote from Bush? "Saddam tried to kill my daddy."

 

[eric]

No one is looking to pick fights, that is a copout. Being challenged on your position is not fighting it is called debate.

 

[r3volut!on]

oh man, they're going to chew you to pieces lomadearena.

 

[lomadearena]

I like them to chew me to pieces without the immature name calling, but that's impossible for Bush supporters.

 

[jimnyc]

I don't think they lied at all about the WMD. They were simply acting on an abundance of intel gathered by many countries. Blame it on faulty intel thus far, but I don't see any lies being told.

I've read many articles supposedly laying out the proof that Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda. Although no concrete proof has been presented, I think there were ties. I don't think it's some huge conspiracy that they were somehow involved with one another (and definitely not on 9/11), but I do think they have worked with one another. This is just my opinion at this point. And again, the administration just provided information gathered from intel sources. I think you are confusing bad intel and judgement for lying. I don't think there was any deception done purposely to the American people.

And one last lie: Mission Accomplished. What was THAT all about?

Probably in reference to removing Saddam and his regime from power. Although I don't think he should have made it sound as if that was the 'entire' mission accomplished, just one of the major goals.

 

[eric]

I think one of the main lies told by the Bush Administration was that there were WMD

This is a great example of why people are challenged in a debate. You can absolutely tell me in good faith that not one single WMD will ever be found in Iraq. You stated this as a fact not an opinion. You could have qualified it with "as of this date it appears bush lied", no again you stated it as fact. If this is how you come to solid conclusions your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You spoke earlier about terrorist having to be proved guilty, does the same not apply to our president?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by lomadearena
I like them to chew me to pieces without the immature name calling, but that's impossible for Bush supporters.

Namecalling? Hardly. I'm still too busy laughing at your posts!

 

[DKSuddeth]

One reputable link/article would be sufficient.

fine, give me a list of what you consider 'reputable' news sources so I can figure out what you'll believe and what you'll consider drivel.

Sorry, no spin here, I quoted you word for word. What you're saying now IS NOT what you originally stated. Still opinionated, but at least demanding facts had you 'right' your spin somewhat.

while you may have quoted me word for word, you read it the way you wanted to. What you see and hear is not always whats being done and spoken. As for righting my 'spin' when you demanded facts, didn't happen. I simply clarified my remarks.

Oh, and fuck you for calling me a fool. Ok then asswipe, show us proof that they KNEW kids would be involved. Selling your pretty little rocks won't help you, and no spiritual healing is going to provide you with the data that doesn't exist.

now that you've called my 'naive fool' remark with your 'fuck you' and 'asswipe' remarks do we continue to escalate? I don't recall ever telling you to fuck off the last time you called me foolish, do you?

As for your 'proof' request, I admit that I can find no certifiable documentation stating that henry kissinger or ronald reagan knew, and admitted, that these weapons would fall in to the hands of children, does that make it any less true? probably, in your view of the world with 'reputable' news sources.

As for your 'pretty little rocks' and 'spiritual healing' remarks......that was petty and uncalled for, but thats cool. It just tells me things about you and the way you deal with things.

Oh, I see, it's only ok to interpret it that way when it supports your argument. The US sold them weapons, period. The receiving countries are 100% responsible for what they do with them. Your assumptions about the knowledge of what they would do with them is based solely on your opinion.

and this interpretation type argument can be applied to almost any argument that you try to make as well. Its all about perceptions and, for the most part, I've attempted to at least meet people halfway on here, sometimes that works and sometimes that doesn't. It all depends on what the argument is and who I'm dealing with.

In other words, you can't find anything to backup your worthless opinions. Thanks for proving my point, again.

your welcome, I'll just consider all of your opinions worthless as well until you can provide reputable news sources.

 

[r3volut!on]

You stated this as a fact not an opinion.

Actually eric, I started the sentence with "I think" which would indicate that I WAS in fact sharing an opinion. I don't understand how anyone could misconstrue a sentence beginning with "I think" as a statement of unquestionable fact.

All you've done is prove that you're looking to attack without paying any attention to what I've said.

 

[eric]

No my friend that is not what "I think" mean in that context. Please reread it carefully, what it mean was you think This lie was one of the main lies, stop backpeddling.