Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[bodecea]

Isn't it precious how they are reduced to counting how many times Obama has said the word "war"?

Actually, no.

It's pathetic that you are reduced to trying to get the mocking exposure of what a massive fraud he is in such a plodding ineffectual way.

I'm sure a person of your severely limited intellectual ability is unable to stop and contemplate something like an implication.

But there are many implications in the fact that the President was so unable and/or unwilling to put the WORD to what was happening.

A torch is a terrible thing to carry....for so long. Isn't it?

 

[Liability]

Obama's never admitted that we are at war except for all those times that he said we are at war ....

We are all prepared to mark tomorrow on our calendar. The 12th whole time he's managed to put to words that which ought to have been clearly articulated!

 

[Liability]

Isn't it precious how they are reduced to counting how many times Obama has said the word "war"?

Actually, no.

It's pathetic that you are reduced to trying to get the mocking exposure of what a massive fraud he is in such a plodding ineffectual way.

I'm sure a person of your severely limited intellectual ability is unable to stop and contemplate something like an implication.

But there are many implications in the fact that the President was so unable and/or unwilling to put the WORD to what was happening.

A torch is a terrible thing to carry....for so long. Isn't it?

So, then put it down already. Your stale lines are not endearing. You remain a fail. Look. It's simple. I STILL find you odious

and I only date within my own species, anyway, so you never had a chance.

Sorry, boredtoseeya. Not interested. Please get back under your bridge.

 

[Article 15]

Obama's never admitted that we are at war except for all those times that he said we are at war ....

We are all prepared to mark tomorrow on our calendar. The 12th whole time he's managed to put to words that which ought to have been clearly articulated!

So you admit the OP and Vice President Cheney are lying.

Thanks.

 

[Liability]

Obama's never admitted that we are at war except for all those times that he said we are at war ....

We are all prepared to mark tomorrow on our calendar. The 12th whole time he's managed to put to words that which ought to have been clearly articulated!

So you admit the OP and Vice President Cheney are lying.

Thanks.

I expect better from you. You sound like Confusedatious. You say "X" I say "NOT X" You say, "Ah, so you admit unrelated concept A."

We are at war. President Obama seems to have massive difficulty putting that to words.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, no.

It's pathetic that you are reduced to trying to get the mocking exposure of what a massive fraud he is in such a plodding ineffectual way.

I'm sure a person of your severely limited intellectual ability is unable to stop and contemplate something like an implication.

But there are many implications in the fact that the President was so unable and/or unwilling to put the WORD to what was happening.

A torch is a terrible thing to carry....for so long. Isn't it?

So, then put it down already. Your stale lines are not endearing. You remain a fail. Look. It's simple. I STILL find you odious

and I only date within my own species, anyway, so you never had a chance.

Sorry, boredtoseeya. Not interested. Please get back under your bridge.

Fascinating how:

1. You are incapable of carrying on conversations here with people you disagree with WITHOUT insults and name calling. That always reflects more on the insulter than it does the insultee.

2. You supposedly find me odious and yet you keep replying to me, sending me messages, etc. So....by your own admission, you are "into" odious-ness?

3. And, if, as you claim, I am not the same species as you....why all that torch-carrying and hitting on me over YEARS? That's bizarre. What is it you are trying to say about your choice of....er....objects of affection?

 

[Liability]

A torch is a terrible thing to carry....for so long. Isn't it?

So, then put it down already. Your stale lines are not endearing. You remain a fail. Look. It's simple. I STILL find you odious

and I only date within my own species, anyway, so you never had a chance.

Sorry, boredtoseeya. Not interested. Please get back under your bridge.

Fascinating how:

1. You are incapable of carrying on conversations here with people you disagree with WITHOUT insults and name calling. That always reflects more on the insulter than it does the insultee.

2. You supposedly find me odious and yet you keep replying to me, sending me messages, etc. So....by your own admission, you are "into" odious-ness?

3. And, if, as you claim, I am not the same species as you....why all that torch-carrying and hitting on me over YEARS? That's bizarre. What is it you are trying to say about your choice of....er....objects of affection?

I will not pretend that I read beyond the first fragment of that second "paragraph."

But, even so, I will tell you again.

You are beyond pathetic in your efforts (always massive failures) to somehow "modify" MY behavior.

Forget it, boredtoseeya.

I enjoy exposing you for the thoroughly dishonest skanky troll you are.

You are conflicted because despite the fact that we politically are polar opposites, you have a weird crush on me.

But all your following me around like a puppy dog doesn't conceal that you are actually just a filthy pig. No dice, pig. Learn to cope.

Now, back under your bridge.

 

[bodecea]

So, then put it down already. Your stale lines are not endearing. You remain a fail. Look. It's simple. I STILL find you odious

and I only date within my own species, anyway, so you never had a chance.

Sorry, boredtoseeya. Not interested. Please get back under your bridge.

Fascinating how:

1. You are incapable of carrying on conversations here with people you disagree with WITHOUT insults and name calling. That always reflects more on the insulter than it does the insultee.

2. You supposedly find me odious and yet you keep replying to me, sending me messages, etc. So....by your own admission, you are "into" odious-ness?

3. And, if, as you claim, I am not the same species as you....why all that torch-carrying and hitting on me over YEARS? That's bizarre. What is it you are trying to say about your choice of....er....objects of affection?

I will not pretend that I read beyond the first fragment of that second "paragraph."

But, even so, I will tell you again.

You are beyond pathetic in your efforts (always massive failures) to somehow "modify" MY behavior.

I have never tried to "modify" your behavior beyond trying to get you to see that NO means NO. As for your habit of altering posters' names as your own cute little way of trying to insult them....I just point it out...something I don't even have to do anymore since most everyone has now gone "Oh yeah...now that you mention it, that IS all he seems to do."

Forget it, boredtoseeya.

I enjoy exposing you for the thoroughly dishonest skanky troll you are.

As I said, I don't need to point this stuff out anymore....it's become self-evident.

You are conflicted because despite the fact that we politically are polar opposites, you have a weird crush on me.

Now...if THAT isn't one of the funniest reflection comments I've seen in years!

But all your following me around like a puppy dog doesn't conceal that you are actually just a filthy pig. No dice, pig. Learn to cope.

Now, back under your bridge.

I have commented on a few of your posts....but I'm sure if I or anyone else were to take the time to check, they'd know EXACTLY who follows who around here.

Ironic, yet funny, stuff right here, I must say.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
I have never tried to "modify" your behavior * * * *

Another deliberate lie by the skank. tsk tsk.

Sorry, boredtoseeya, but I simply have no interest in inter-species dating.

Now, get back under your bridge you repetitive but unfunny and uninspired useless hack troll.

 

[CurveLight]

Isn't it precious how they are reduced to counting how many times Obama has said the word "war"?

Actually, no.

It's pathetic that you are reduced to trying to get the mocking exposure of what a massive fraud he is in such a plodding ineffectual way.

I'm sure a person of your severely limited intellectual ability is unable to stop and contemplate something like an implication.

But there are many implications in the fact that the President was so unable and/or unwilling to put the WORD to what was happening.

Yes it is pathetic you wrap your scrawny ass neck around the dumbest things and fool yourself into believing you are doing anything other than whining.

 

[Liability]

Isn't it precious how they are reduced to counting how many times Obama has said the word "war"?

Actually, no.

It's pathetic that you are reduced to trying to get the mocking exposure of what a massive fraud he is in such a plodding ineffectual way.

I'm sure a person of your severely limited intellectual ability is unable to stop and contemplate something like an implication.

But there are many implications in the fact that the President was so unable and/or unwilling to put the WORD to what was happening.

Yes it is pathetic you wrap your scrawny ass neck around the dumbest things and fool yourself into believing you are doing anything other than whining.

Listen ya idiot little *****, when I want any shit outta you, I'll squeeze your head till it pops.

Seriously, though, You have nothing to offer, but you spout off your vapid idiocy without end.

By the way, you wrap your ass around things?

Ewww. I think that's just TMI, fuckface.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is an observation about Lieability and other wannabees on the forum. They much in common with three and four year olds, of course, and simply love to keep asking (in whining, plaintive tones) "WHYYYYY?" over and over, no matter how many answers the adults around them provide, then attacking those whom they dislibe. For them, it's all about getting more attention.

Lieability and other wannabee teabaggers have also developed an online strategy to try to force one’s supposed "opponents" into hyper-defining every comment they make. The apologist starts responding to the every concise comment or question by demanding a book-length dissertation. In case the wannabees haven't realized this, it's a very obvious strategy---one by which they get to pretend that they're the only "thinking" persons in the discussion. Then, when others do expound, the apologist simply plays the same strategy again, ad nauseum, until everyone gets tired of dealing with him or her, at which point the apologist can bow for the adoration of his or her fellows, probably commenting on another obscure "apologetics" website about how they "confounded the enemy."

And when all else fails, Lieability and the others resort to name-calling, etc., thinking that such behavior substitutes adequately for calm, reasoned discussion. These folks are of the same moral character as our opponents in WWII who lived by the Big Lie. So does Lieability and his allies.

 

[Liability]

Here is an observation about * * * *

I edited Jokey's dumbass bleating for the sake of rationality. The balance of the retarded Jokey's post is still available if one "jumps" to it using the icon in the quote box. Why anybody would want to waste the time reading that douchebag's commentary is another matter.

The rejoinder to his bullshit is easy. JOKEY and other dumbfucks like that *****-boi are afraid of properly defining their terms. So they falsely claim that others (like me) use a "strategy" of getting people to rely on "hyper-defining." Yes. He made that shit up, naturally. He is a ******* imbecile, after all.

Of course, he was simply lying. That's all that idiot knows how to do.

In reality (a place not often visited by liars and scum like Jokey) I do not call for "hyper definitions." In fact, if you find the need to "hyper" define something, you are usually avoiding the actual definition. Unlike JOKEY and his idiot-ilk, I prefer the ACTUAL definitions.

The problem with debating the issue of whether waterboarding is torture is that the definition of torture quickly becomes the key. Once we know and agree on what waterboarding is (and that's pretty easy to nail down), it will either (a) clearly meet the defintion of torture or (b) it will clearly NOT meet that definition or (c) it will fall into some gray area in between. But what is the PROPER definition of "torture?'

Those who wish to only PRETEND to be engaging in a debate (like the ever fraudulent Jokey) but who actually wish, instead, to merely make it a matter of tautology will always rely on some defintion of torture favored by some uber-lib group like the U.N. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the position of the idiot, Jokey.

If the opponent (me) accepts that U.N. definition (which would be silly), there is no reason to even begin the debate since waterboarding does cause some pain and the fear of death, that could easily be seen as mental or psychological pain or agony and thus (by trivial defintion) waterboarding WOULD be "torture."

Thus we see it clearly. Debate is not want they want. They simply want to "win" their point regardless of the unsatisfactory nature of the original premise.

Is waterboarding torture? I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't know. It depends on the circumstances and the definitions. In some cases, it could be. If we accept the U.N. defintion of torture the answer is even simpler: it is probably a clear cut "yes."

But in a world where words have their real meaning, the defintion of torture isn't a political football crafted by liberals in the U.N. And in THAT world, "torture" is not a word that has been forced into deliberately narrow constraints favored by the U.N. and other liberal ideologues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lieability can't handle the truth that he has nothing worthwhile to add to America.

 

[Liability]

Lieability can't handle the truth that he has nothing worthwhile to add to America.

Unlike you, Jokey, I speak the truth.

You always just lie... as your posts keep proving.

You still have nothing.

 

[CurveLight]

Here is an observation about * * * *

I edited Jokey's dumbass bleating for the sake of rationality. The balance of the retarded Jokey's post is still available if one "jumps" to it using the icon in the quote box. Why anybody would want to waste the time reading that douchebag's commentary is another matter.

The rejoinder to his bullshit is easy. JOKEY and other dumbfucks like that *****-boi are afraid of properly defining their terms. So they falsely claim that others (like me) use a "strategy" of getting people to rely on "hyper-defining." Yes. He made that shit up, naturally. He is a ******* imbecile, after all.

Of course, he was simply lying. That's all that idiot knows how to do.

In reality (a place not often visited by liars and scum like Jokey) I do not call for "hyper definitions." In fact, if you find the need to "hyper" define something, you are usually avoiding the actual definition. Unlike JOKEY and his idiot-ilk, I prefer the ACTUAL definitions.

The problem with debating the issue of whether waterboarding is torture is that the definition of torture quickly becomes the key. Once we know and agree on what waterboarding is (and that's pretty easy to nail down), it will either (a) clearly meet the defintion of torture or (b) it will clearly NOT meet that definition or (c) it will fall into some gray area in between. But what is the PROPER definition of "torture?'

Those who wish to only PRETEND to be engaging in a debate (like the ever fraudulent Jokey) but who actually wish, instead, to merely make it a matter of tautology will always rely on some defintion of torture favored by some uber-lib group like the U.N. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the position of the idiot, Jokey.

If the opponent (me) accepts that U.N. definition (which would be silly), there is no reason to even begin the debate since waterboarding does cause some pain and the fear of death, that could easily be seen as mental or psychological pain or agony and thus (by trivial defintion) waterboarding WOULD be "torture."

Thus we see it clearly. Debate is not want they want. They simply want to "win" their point regardless of the unsatisfactory nature of the original premise.

Is waterboarding torture? I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't know. It depends on the circumstances and the definitions. In some cases, it could be. If we accept the U.N. defintion of torture the answer is even simpler: it is probably a clear cut "yes."

But in a world where words have their real meaning, the defintion of torture isn't a political football crafted by liberals in the U.N. And in THAT world, "torture" is not a word that has been forced into deliberately narrow constraints favored by the U.N. and other liberal ideologues.

Is there any issue you discuss where you are even remotely informed?

 

[Liability]

Here is an observation about * * * *

I edited Jokey's dumbass bleating for the sake of rationality. The balance of the retarded Jokey's post is still available if one "jumps" to it using the icon in the quote box. Why anybody would want to waste the time reading that douchebag's commentary is another matter.

The rejoinder to his bullshit is easy. JOKEY and other dumbfucks like that *****-boi are afraid of properly defining their terms. So they falsely claim that others (like me) use a "strategy" of getting people to rely on "hyper-defining." Yes. He made that shit up, naturally. He is a ******* imbecile, after all.

Of course, he was simply lying. That's all that idiot knows how to do.

In reality (a place not often visited by liars and scum like Jokey) I do not call for "hyper definitions." In fact, if you find the need to "hyper" define something, you are usually avoiding the actual definition. Unlike JOKEY and his idiot-ilk, I prefer the ACTUAL definitions.

The problem with debating the issue of whether waterboarding is torture is that the definition of torture quickly becomes the key. Once we know and agree on what waterboarding is (and that's pretty easy to nail down), it will either (a) clearly meet the defintion of torture or (b) it will clearly NOT meet that definition or (c) it will fall into some gray area in between. But what is the PROPER definition of "torture?'

Those who wish to only PRETEND to be engaging in a debate (like the ever fraudulent Jokey) but who actually wish, instead, to merely make it a matter of tautology will always rely on some defintion of torture favored by some uber-lib group like the U.N. Not surprisingly, this is exactly the position of the idiot, Jokey.

If the opponent (me) accepts that U.N. definition (which would be silly), there is no reason to even begin the debate since waterboarding does cause some pain and the fear of death, that could easily be seen as mental or psychological pain or agony and thus (by trivial defintion) waterboarding WOULD be "torture."

Thus we see it clearly. Debate is not want they want. They simply want to "win" their point regardless of the unsatisfactory nature of the original premise.

Is waterboarding torture? I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't know. It depends on the circumstances and the definitions. In some cases, it could be. If we accept the U.N. defintion of torture the answer is even simpler: it is probably a clear cut "yes."

But in a world where words have their real meaning, the defintion of torture isn't a political football crafted by liberals in the U.N. And in THAT world, "torture" is not a word that has been forced into deliberately narrow constraints favored by the U.N. and other liberal ideologues.

Is there any issue you discuss where you are even remotely informed?

Pointless question coming from a complete assclown like you. You are unable to discern that which is informed from anything and everything else. You are, it appears, just tragically retarded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lieability is projecting his inability to act like a grownup onto Curve Light (again).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lieability[/B];1883356]

Lieability can't handle the truth that he has nothing worthwhile to add to America.

Unlike you, Jokey, I speak the truth.

You always just lie... as your posts keep proving.

You still have nothing.

You are drooling again, Lie.

 

[Liability]

Lieability[/B];1883356]

Lieability can't handle the truth that he has nothing worthwhile to add to America.

Unlike you, Jokey, I speak the truth.

You always just lie... as your posts keep proving.

You still have nothing.

You are drooling again, Lie.

You are sucking ass, still, Jokey.