No, we still have to agree on rules. You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself. I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.
What you've done above is admit that a new investigation IS fully warranted, considering you've called my challenge along those lines "insanely easy" to accomplish.
Ironically, you appear to be desperate to RAISE the hurdle so high as to be impossible to clear. That sounds like a person who's not very confident in the official story in the first place. I mean, if this were such an easy game for you, and the Team Bush story so rock solid, we would guess you'd be like "whatever then, game on... you got nothing anyway."
To your crowd, if we don't provide every detail, including Cheney's breakfast order and tie color that morning, then that somehow means nothing has been shown to be nefarious whatsoever. Such a notion is truly laughable, and further evidence of profound hubris by a fading number of Americans who can't stand the idea that their leaders might have facilitated unethical behavior -- despite a long, LONG history of them doing just that.
Essentially, and this is common for coincidence theorists, your defense strategy is like telling the judge: "your honor, unless we can see the entire case, review all witness testimony beforehand, and hear assurance that you might actually rule against us, we insist that you throw the case out. In fact, we're going to leave the court unless you satisfy our every whim before litigation even commences."
In terms of the challenge put to you to actually attempt to debate civilly? We "got started" the moment you said "sure, your move."
You lost the bet. Just deal with it.
The debate can continue, and you can attempt to redeem yourself. It's not too difficult to avoid acting childish. And it will certainly help your position in the view of onlookers. Suggesting I'm "retarded" over and over again will hinder your position, make no mistake.
No, thats the bullshit standard you tried to suggest. I called you on it and now you don't know what to do. The standard is for you to prove LIHOP as you swear happened. Good to see you've already abandoned your boisterous claims and we haven't even gotten started [laughs]
I can assure you, candy, when it comes to 9/11 and the most ruthless administration in U.S. history, I've never not "known what to do" nor "abandoned" any claim. You'll learn that as we go along. It will be you who will be left scrambling for explanation, to the point of amusing extrapolation and coincidence buttressing.
See, this is what twoofers do. I never said that; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report. It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.
This isn't going to go well for you if you're mired in semantics arguments over the difference between "inaccuracy" and "inconsistency."
I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack No surprise.
There was no personal attack anywhere in my post, even by the most victim-addled rationale. Calling someone an "other retard?" Now that is a personal attack.
Anyhow, despite your objection to the burden of proof level, I'll get to it then. In the next 48 hrs or so, I'm going to create the ultimate "Let it happen on purpose" thread for you and I to dance through. I do hope you have at least read the 9/11 Commission Report, as a crucial frame of reference.
