[itistoday]

Duck for cover! Grammar Nazis at 2 o'clock!

[Spliffdaddy]

Spliffdaddy - handing newbies their asses, while using a 26.4k connection and a 7 year old Packard Bell keyboard.

[[email protected]]

abe I'm glad to see that the grammer police has shown up.

Granted there has been mistakes in my posts. Is that all you can do is comment on my mistakes?? Look at the facts that I have posted. Then you can see your mistakes.

I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I thought we were having a conversation about politics. But once again, when you and your buddys get put in a corner, you come out with personal attacks.

Everthing that I have posted can be looked up and proven. In fact I have given links for most of them.
The best lesson that I have learned is to allways have evidence. Evidence is something that cannot be taken away. Everything that everyone has posted against me I have proven to be false or misleading.
What can you say about your opinions that you have posted??
Where are your facts??
That's what I thought.

[Spliffdaddy]

And I'm still waiting for the poll that shows Dubya with an 80% disapproval rating.

I'm guessing it doesn't exist - and that figure was pulled out of kobi's ass.

Historically, I have been right 99.65% of the time.

[Kevin]

Ok now I am going to delete all the drivel from your post

Originally Posted by itistoday

Or perhaps I was saying that you missed the point?
In other words, your post contained a remarkable amount of bullshit.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
Would that mean that you'd stop posting?
Because that'd be great!
It's called logical reasoning.
The fact is that no one on this forum knows the "facts", but you don't have to be a genius to connect the dots.
What on earth does this prove??? Vapidity! Clinton said a lot of things, as we all know.
Talk about missing the point.
OK, let's refresh your old memory as to what the point was.
Duh
Oh yeah, they sure loved us. They really wanted us to come and save them.
One by one your statements drop like flies.
Oh, one more suggestion for you, to add to my growing list of suggestions for you (I'm real generous aren't I?):
Read and Comprehend my entire post before replying.
Don't methodically reply as you read, because that causes you to miss the "bigger picture".
Good day, grasshoppah.
What part of that do you not understand? It really seems like you have problems reading.

Ok now that we have stripped your posts of all the silliness (well not all, but a good percentage) we can move on.

Which election are we talking here? The one before his first term? If so some links would be nice.

Sure thing

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

Again, no one here knows the real facts.

Correct. So we discuss what we do know. Making stuff up isn't anything but verbal masturbation

All we know is what they say, and what they say by no means necessarily represents reality

No, that again is an opinion. We may have a BELIEF of that.

therefore based on plenty evidence and a little thinking I can make those statements. I never said I was there at the Oval office to witness the decisions and the reasoning first hand, no one here, including you, had that privilege.

Right, I did not. But I am not the one using my personal opinion as fact here. Why? Because I don't know. So why do you keep doing it?

And I keep telling you that the two wars had nothing to do with each other.

When War I ended we put sanctions on Iraq. They were told if they did not follow said sanctions dire consequences would take place.

Saddam did not follow along. Measures were taken.

Now, how can you say one doesn't have to do with each other?

It was merely a convenience for Bush that we had fought Iraq before (and again, for a completely different reason). The Persian Gulf War was over in 1994. Iraq accepted UN's terms. The war was over. What part of that do you not understand?

No, they did NOT accept the terms. Your memory is a bit fuzzy. Go back and re-read the WHOLE history of Iraq and the UN inspections. Or are you calling the UN and Clinton a liars too?

In addition to my previous statements on this "factual" accusation of yours, let me just say that for this point I did provide facts. The US's indifference towards human suffering in Africa, China and North Korea are prime examples.

And I answered you telling you because we ALREADY had a history in Iraq.

I said the people of Kuwait, unlike Iraq, asked for help.

Because unlike Iraq their leader supported them.

To this you responded that the people of Iraq couldn't even vote.

No, that isn't all I responded to you with. I was using that as an example of how imprisoned the people were.

To that I pointed out the obvious reasons as to why they could not vote. MY POINT was to show you that them not being able to vote had no bearing on their ability to start a rebellion. OK?

No, them not being armed is a better one. And I told you that as well.

No sh*t. That's exactly what I said. You're so eager to say "NAH AH!!" that you don't even realize what you're disagreeing with!

Go re-read what you said.

What on earth have you proven? In order to win this debate you have to *prove* that the people of Iraq actively wanted the USA to invade and "liberate" them, meaning you have to prove that a *significant* amount asked the US of A for help.

I suggest you go back to the start of this thread if you think this is what this is about oh straw-man.

So far all you have done is given evidence in direct contradiction to your argument, for example, from the article you linked to:

Tell us, how did it contradict me?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

One rule for Americans and one rule for foreigners.

Always sad to see such blatant hypocrisy.......

Yes, Americans are looked under a stricter rule that the terrorists.

What's your point?

[Spliffdaddy]

Personal attacks? Me? The "tool"?

Well I never..

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kobi

I'll watch the personal attacks/ad-hominems.

I thought we were having a discussion.

If I've personally offended anybody, I'm sorry.

Life is too short to offend people that you don't know.

Originally Posted by kobi

once agian Spliff your showing that your a tool. I know you know how to read but your basic comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

Only you can be given facts and still have the stupidity to say that their wrong.

No wonder this country is in the shape that it's in.
How sad it must be to actually believe what you write.

I'll be sure to ask for my college money back, so I can send you to reading class.

I'm disappointed in you kobi

[[email protected]]

Sorry Kevin.
I got caught up in the moment.
Sorry Spliff.
No more personal stuff.

[Spliffdaddy]

I really don't mind if folks call me names, because sometimes I slip-up and say things I probably shouldn't.

Name-calling or not - it's always fun to debate and argue. There's no better way to hone your skills than to come here and try to defend your opinions.

Even at my worst, I'm sitting here smiling. I'm the guy that's pretty much impossible to piss off.

So, carry on. We like fresh meat in this forum. Helps to replace the folks I scared off.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I really don't mind if folks call me names, because sometimes I slip-up and say things I probably shouldn't.

Name-calling or not - it's always fun to debate and argue. There's no better way to hone your skills than to come here and try to defend your opinions.

Even at my worst, I'm sitting here smiling. I'm the guy that's pretty much impossible to piss off.

So, carry on. We like fresh meat in this forum. Helps to replace the folks I scared off.

Yeah, how many main lounge denizens no longer feel able to hack it here?

I believe if you have a supportable point of view and a sense of fun about you and pretty decent communication skills you can find happiness in the P/L.

[Spliffdaddy]

It ain't often a person gets 5 pages on their very first thread.

Gotta give him props for that achievement.

[itistoday]

Seems like we need a historical refresher. Kevin, hold your horses, don't jump the gun, read this entire post before responding so that we can avoid these lengthy replies.

Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq illegally possessed "weapons of mass destruction" in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and had to be disarmed by force.[3] President George W. Bush repeatedly asserted that these weapons posed a grave and timely threat to the United States and its allies.[4][5] UN inspection teams were searching Iraq for these alleged weapons for nearly four months prior to the invasion and were willing to continue, but were forced out by the onset of war in spite of their requests for more time.[6][7]

The Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003[8] and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[9]

Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors (UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA) The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed when France made it known they would veto further Resolutions on Iraq. Thus, the Coalition invasion began without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council, and most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the UN Charter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Four months later on March 7, 2003, head of the inspectors, Hans Blix made his last presentation to the U.N. describing Iraq's cooperation in resolving oustanding issues as "active or even proactive"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war (Sydney Morning Herald, April 22, 2006, http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-...44306427.html).

Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War-_Rationale

Let's see here, the United States' official reason for Invasion was WMDs. We find a truckload of evidence that shows that pre-War, experts could not find any evidence of WMDs, therefore Iraq was complying. CIA officials say the President knew this but didn't care and wanted any excuse possible for invading Iraq. Post-War we find no WMDs. Summary: Iraq was complying, there was no evidence of WMDs, the United States attacked anyways.

Additionally we have your admittance here:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by itistoday

Those sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the USA alone.

Indeed.

And so you agree that the USA violated international law by attacking Iraq.

Wow, how are you able to stand up if you have no legs? Hahahaha!

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ok now I am going to delete all the drivel from your post

Ok now that we have stripped your posts of all the silliness (well not all, but a good percentage) we can move on.

Stealing my technique, eh? It's OK, I'll take it as a compliment. Did you notice that all of that "drivel" was in direct reply to yours? I'm guessing you didn't realize that fact. Oh, and not all of it was drivel. You're not allowed to dismiss my statements that have direct relevance to our argument; that's called an admittance of defeat. Here's one:

Originally Posted by itistoday

What on earth does this prove??? Vapidity! Clinton said a lot of things, as we all know.

Better answer up, boy.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure thing

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

You know, I really LOVE how you find these great articles for me that completely destroy your argument. It's as if you're doing the work for me. Did you not realize that entire article is anti-Bush? Hahahaha.

OK. First: My accusation was that Bush did not say anything publicly about Iraq's "issues" with UN sanctions prior to 9/11. This article proves me right. It's right there in the title: "Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq". Also, it doesn't mention anything regarding UN sanctions as being the reason for invasion. Get it?

This means he wanted to invade Iraq all along, and was waiting for an opportunity. Let's look into your article some more for additional juiciness:

He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade... if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Wow! There in the article you showed me! Evidence that Bush wanted an opportunity like a war so that he could pass his legislation! Phenomenal, this is the second article that has been your undoing! I love this article, really, thank you for showing it to me, there's more!

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.

What? I thought they wanted to invade because of WMDs!

Oooo... and there's even more:

In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush’s own words to describe the Texan’s unprofitable business ventures, writing: “the companies were floundering”. “I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, ‘You’ve got some wrong information.’ I didn’t bother to say, ‘Well you know where it came from.’

Bush admits himself that he's upset over his oil business, and his campaign lawyers don't like people knowing that! See, connect-the-dots? We learned how to do that in third grade, remember?

Oh man, OK, back to your ramblings.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Correct. So we discuss what we do know. Making stuff up isn't anything but verbal masturbation

I'm not making anything up, I'm connecting the dots, using my brain, etc. Things you could learn to do. "Deduction, my dear Watson" Sherlock was right about a lot of things even though he hadn't nearly the incredible evidence I have.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, that again is an opinion. We may have a BELIEF of that.

WRONG. It is indeed a fact that "what they say by no means necessarily represents reality".

Originally Posted by Kevin

When War I ended we put sanctions on Iraq. They were told if they did not follow said sanctions dire consequences would take place.

Saddam did not follow along. Measures were taken.

Whoops, see, that's where you're "wrong". As I've shown above, he did follow along, and the UN, you know, as you've already admitted, the group that imposed the sanctions, did not feel he was breaking them.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now, how can you say one doesn't have to do with each other?

Because they were fought for different reasons as I have proven above.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, they did NOT accept the terms. Your memory is a bit fuzzy. Go back and re-read the WHOLE history of Iraq and the UN inspections. Or are you calling the UN and Clinton a liars too?

As I've proven above, I have read the history and I have proven that they did accept the terms. How about you prove they didn't? It seems like you're the one who needs to re-read history.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And I answered you telling you because we ALREADY had a history in Iraq.

Let me get this straight... Your answer, to why Bush didn't help small villages in Africa where people were being slaughtered by wandering gangs with machetes (real advanced weaponry), was because of a war that was over? Bwahahahahaa!!!

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because unlike Iraq their leader supported them.

Rebels don't usually acknowledge the dictator as their leader last time I checked...

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, them not being armed is a better one. And I told you that as well.

Care to provide evidence that the people of Iraq could not secretly stash weapons such as countless other oppressed peoples have? You know, like we during the Revolution, like those living in South America, etc.?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Go re-read what you said.

I did, and I still see that we were saying the same thing there. Perhaps you should re-read it?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I suggest you go back to the start of this thread if you think this is what this is about oh straw-man.

*NEWSFLASH* Our debate here is completely off-topic from this thread! We've got our own thing going on here, and as I've said... here, I'll quote myself for you:

Originally Posted by itistoday

In order to win this debate you have to *prove* that the people of Iraq actively wanted the USA to invade and "liberate" them, meaning you have to prove that a *significant* amount asked the US of A for help.

So far I'm winning.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tell us, how did it contradict me?

ROFL!!

Again, I'm really too nice to you. I'll refresh your memory for the second time as to what we're debating about. You asked me what should have been done about Saddam's actions:

Originally Posted by Kevin

So you think letting Saddam murder, rape, and torture innocent people was ok? Nothing should have been done about it?

I said that we should have waited until the Iraqis asked us to help.

This article you linked to shows that they loved Saddam and hated America. How much more do you need to be spoon-fed? Have you changed your mind? Do you admit defeat?

Please, Kevin, stick to the topic and use your brain. It's getting quite difficult for me to help you piece together your own ineptitude and losing argument.

[Spliffdaddy]

WOW.

I dunno, Kevin....is it even possible to remove all the sillyness from that post?

Looks like a lost cause to me. But I know you're not giving up that easy.

Even on this bigass monitor® it's a long scroll.

I'm sure your sillyometer is reading off the scale.

[abe]

Originally Posted by kobi

abe I'm glad to see that the grammer police has shown up.

Granted there has been mistakes in my posts. Is that all you can do is comment on my mistakes?? Look at the facts that I have posted. Then you can see your mistakes.

I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I thought we were having a conversation about politics. But once again, when you and your buddys get put in a corner, you come out with personal attacks.

Everthing that I have posted can be looked up and proven. In fact I have given links for most of them.
The best lesson that I have learned is to allways have evidence. Evidence is something that cannot be taken away. Everything that everyone has posted against me I have proven to be false or misleading.
What can you say about your opinions that you have posted??
Where are your facts??
That's what I thought.

It's not JUST GRAMMAR, kobi. If someone is unable to SPELL correctly it indicates an inability to pay attention to details. It suggests a tendency to take shortcuts. It suggests that you think accuracy is not important.

And if it were JUST spelling that was lacking in your posts (despite the presence of any number of electronic spelling aids available) we would overlook it as we regularly overlook it with ALL of our posts. NO ONE is ever 100% perfect. But in bringing up your spelling and/or grammar it is an effort to bring to light how unreliable your perceptions are.

And it only UNDERSCORES the flaw in BASIC REPORTAGE in your original post. It is a huge, gaping, oozing example of how unreliable your perceptions are.

And, once again, those who hold your posts in esteem expose their own judgment as being suspect.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It ain't often a person gets 5 pages on their very first thread.

Gotta give him props for that achievement.

I'll give it up for him!

[Spliffdaddy]

"It is a huge, gaping, oozing example...."

ack.

That just sent a chill up my spine. Now there are 3 words you just don't need to link all together one after another.

I'll have to remember that one.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

WOW.

I dunno, Kevin....is it even possible to remove all the sillyness from that post?

Looks like a lost cause to me. But I know you're not giving up that easy.

Even on this bigass monitor® it's a long scroll.

I'm sure your sillyometer is reading off the scale.

I could create a computer program that behaves just like you:

Code:
// file: conservative.c

#include <stdio.h>

#include "conservative.h"

main() {
while (1) {
switch (state) {
case LOSING_ARGUMENT:
printf("WOW.  What you say is silly!\n");
break;
default:
printf("Bush rules!  Global warming is teh suck!  Families must die!!\n");
}
}
}

[abe]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"It is a huge, gaping, oozing example...."

ack.

That just sent a chill up my spine. Now there are 3 words you just don't need to link all together one after another.

I'll have to remember that one.

Hmmm, do you think it's a little bit of overkill?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I could create a computer program that behaves just like you:

Code:
// file: conservative.c

#include <stdio.h>

#include "conservative.h"

main() {
while (1) {
switch (state) {
case LOSING_ARGUMENT:
printf("WOW.  What you say is silly!\n");
break;
default:
printf("Bush rules!  Global warming is teh suck!  Families must die!!\n");
}
}
}

Code:
10 cls
20 print "But can you create a BASIC program that mimics me?"
30 print "Y or N"
40 a$=inkey$
50 if a$="Y" then goto 80
60 if a$="N" then goto 140
70 goto 10
80 cls
90 print "Global Warming is teh Suck"
100 for I=1to1000:next I
110 cls
120 for I=1to500:next I
130 goto 90
140 cls
150 print "Hell, I'd kill everybody in the immediate vicinity"
160 end
170 rem the hillbilly threat is real

Don't mess with the Spliffmeister. I was programming before you were born.

[itistoday]

20 print "But can you create a BASIC program that mimics me?"

I'd rather not, BASIC is for 3rd graders (or conservatives, they don't like progress).

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I'd rather not, BASIC is for 3rd graders (or conservatives, they don't like progress).

Don't hate on BASIC.

I spent the better part of 2 years creating a Missile Command game using BASIC where I worked. Of course, I was supposed to be doing real work, but oh well.

I plotted the map of the US one pixel at a time, yo.

[[email protected]]

one pixel at a time?
That is wild.
How long did it take?

[Spliffdaddy]

It took a while. Months, perhaps.

I cut out a map of the US and taped it to the monitor. Then, I traced the outline with a dry-erase marker. I plotted each pixel by guessing its X,Y axis location - and then refining it until it was correct. Each pixel had to have a 3 digit number to identify its location on the X axis, a 3 digit number for its location on the Y axis, and a one digit number to identify the color of the pixel. Later, I added cities and other geographic features. This was back in the old days, so my machine had a 8088 processor - and no math co-processor. It was running Windows3.1, and whatever version of BASIC it shipped with. The resolution was 640x480, and I had one of the new color monitors - so I was able to use all 8 colors BASIC had to offer.

By the time I finished the program, it filled 3 floppy disks. Which was more data than the operating system shipped with. I had to borrow one of the new 80286 machines just so I could run that Missile Command program. Then, one day I reached into my desk drawer to grab the three floppies and realized there were only 2. Somebody had used one of them to store some Lotus123 files. heh.

[[email protected]]

ouch. that loss of the floppy had to hurt.
did you ever find out who used it?

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by abe

ROFLMAO!

Actually, that cracked me up too. And I've been a frequent recipient. (maybe once even justifiablly so.)

Edit: Oh wow, that was like eightybillionty posts ago. Jeesh. Don't you guys have anything more appriate to do on Memorial Day other than just bicker on Al Gores' interweb?

[Dakar]

Wow, this thread is a classic.

[Kevin]

Ok nw again I have to removed the silliness

Originally Posted by itistoday

Seems like we need a historical refresher. Kevin, hold your horses, don't jump the gun, read this entire post before responding so that we can avoid these lengthy replies.



Let's see here, the United States' official reason for Invasion was WMDs. We find a truckload of evidence that shows that pre-War, experts could not find any evidence of WMDs, therefore Iraq was complying. CIA officials say the President knew this but didn't care and wanted any excuse possible for invading Iraq. Post-War we find no WMDs. Summary: Iraq was complying, there was no evidence of WMDs, the United States attacked anyways.

Additionally we have your admittance here:


And so you agree that the USA violated international law by attacking Iraq.

Wow, how are you able to stand up if you have no legs? Hahahaha!





Stealing my technique, eh? It's OK, I'll take it as a compliment. Did you notice that all of that "drivel" was in direct reply to yours? I'm guessing you didn't realize that fact. Oh, and not all of it was drivel. You're not allowed to dismiss my statements that have direct relevance to our argument; that's called an admittance of defeat. Here's one:


Better answer up, boy.



You know, I really LOVE how you find these great articles for me that completely destroy your argument. It's as if you're doing the work for me. Did you not realize that entire article is anti-Bush? Hahahaha.

OK. First: My accusation was that Bush did not say anything publicly about Iraq's "issues" with UN sanctions prior to 9/11. This article proves me right. It's right there in the title: "Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq". Also, it doesn't mention anything regarding UN sanctions as being the reason for invasion. Get it?

This means he wanted to invade Iraq all along, and was waiting for an opportunity. Let's look into your article some more for additional juiciness:



Wow! There in the article you showed me! Evidence that Bush wanted an opportunity like a war so that he could pass his legislation! Phenomenal, this is the second article that has been your undoing! I love this article, really, thank you for showing it to me, there's more!



What? I thought they wanted to invade because of WMDs!

Oooo... and there's even more:



Bush admits himself that he's upset over his oil business, and his campaign lawyers don't like people knowing that! See, connect-the-dots? We learned how to do that in third grade, remember?

Oh man, OK, back to your ramblings.


I'm not making anything up, I'm connecting the dots, using my brain, etc. Things you could learn to do. "Deduction, my dear Watson" Sherlock was right about a lot of things even though he hadn't nearly the incredible evidence I have.



WRONG. It is indeed a fact that "what they say by no means necessarily represents reality".


Whoops, see, that's where you're "wrong". As I've shown above, he did follow along, and the UN, you know, as you've already admitted, the group that imposed the sanctions, did not feel he was breaking them.


Because they were fought for different reasons as I have proven above.


As I've proven above, I have read the history and I have proven that they did accept the terms. How about you prove they didn't? It seems like you're the one who needs to re-read history.


Let me get this straight... Your answer, to why Bush didn't help small villages in Africa where people were being slaughtered by wandering gangs with machetes (real advanced weaponry), was because of a war that was over? Bwahahahahaa!!!


Rebels don't usually acknowledge the dictator as their leader last time I checked...


Care to provide evidence that the people of Iraq could not secretly stash weapons such as countless other oppressed peoples have? You know, like we during the Revolution, like those living in South America, etc.?


I did, and I still see that we were saying the same thing there. Perhaps you should re-read it?


*NEWSFLASH* Our debate here is completely off-topic from this thread! We've got our own thing going on here, and as I've said... here, I'll quote myself for you:

So far I'm winning.


ROFL!!

Again, I'm really too nice to you. I'll refresh your memory for the second time as to what we're debating about. You asked me what should have been done about Saddam's actions:


I said that we should have waited until the Iraqis asked us to help.

This article you linked to shows that they loved Saddam and hated America. How much more do you need to be spoon-fed? Have you changed your mind? Do you admit defeat?

Please, Kevin, stick to the topic and use your brain. It's getting quite difficult for me to help you piece together your own ineptitude and losing argument.

And **** if I don't have anything to respond to.

I found a pic of itstoday though

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

WOW.

I dunno, Kevin....is it even possible to remove all the sillyness from that post?
.

glad I am not the only one that sees it.

Everytime I would post something that disproved what he said, he attempted to spin or switch arguements in that last post. All in which was intangled with chest pounding pretentioness and ad-hominems.

I think he used every conversational terrorism tactic in the book with that one. And with that I can say I am impressed. B+

The content was lacking though. F-

He doesn't know the history of it. This is obvious.

The fact I had to tell him about the most obvious happenings tells me he simply was not, and is not paying attention.

When it becomes clear to me that the person no longer is interested in having an honest discussin, but is just attempting to "play the game" which he admitted to, I no longer have any desire to continue with them.

It gets too redundant.

[abe]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Actually, that cracked me up too. And I've been a frequent recipient. (maybe once even justifiablly so.)

Edit: Oh wow, that was like eightybillionty posts ago. Jeesh. Don't you guys have anything more appriate to do on Memorial Day other than just bicker on Al Gores' interweb?

WOW!

Great picture!

You just showed me something I hadn't before sensed in your posts. It is heartening to see that side of you.

[spauldingg]

Thought you might like it. Got it from DailyKos.

[abe]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Thought you might like it. Got it from DailyKos.

That picture reflects the way I feel about the President. I pray that he be granted the wisdom to do what's best for this country and the world.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by kobi

Granted there has been mistakes in my posts. Is that all you can do is comment on my mistakes?? Look at the facts that I have posted. Then you can see your mistakes.

Where are your facts??
That's what I thought.

Sorry, could you point out to me where you posted facts? Your first post was filled with untrue of misleading facts (knowing the difference between Army and Marines is a basic thing.)

Since then, you've posted opinion. An opinion that Bush should be charged with war crimes. An opinion that the war is based on lies, etc.

Please note there is nothing wrong with your opinions. You have a right to them, no matter how left-wing wacko they are.

But don't accuse others of not posting facts and revel in the fact that you are a fact-posting machine. Your opinions and spitting up the opinions of left-wing bloggers is not fact-posting.

When I want facts, I wait for Simey to come along. He's always got his sh*t together.

Here are some facts for you:

In the last poll that mattered, with over 121 Million people surveyed, George W. Bush had 51% support.

George W. Bush didn't send the troops to war on his own. In fact, the House approved the Iraq War Resolution 296-133 while the Senate passed it 77-23.

George W. Bush didn't ask the UN for permission to attack Iraq. He doesn't have to. Ask is predecesor how many military actions he approved after asking permission from the UN. He'll answer "zero."

And here's a fact you have yet to address:

These are Marines who are accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

[abe]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Sorry, could you point out to me where you posted facts? Your first post was filled with untrue of misleading facts (knowing the difference between Army and Marines is a basic thing.)

Since then, you've posted opinion. An opinion that Bush should be charged with war crimes. An opinion that the war is based on lies, etc.

Please note there is nothing wrong with your opinions. You have a right to them, no matter how left-wing wacko they are.

But don't accuse others of not posting facts and revel in the fact that you are a fact-posting machine. Your opinions and spitting up the opinions of left-wing bloggers is not fact-posting.

When I want facts, I wait for Simey to come along. He's always got his sh*t together.

Here are some facts for you:

In the last poll that mattered, with over 121 Million people surveyed, George W. Bush had 51% support.

George W. Bush didn't send the troops to war on his own. In fact, the House approved the Iraq War Resolution 296-133 while the Senate passed it 77-23.

George W. Bush didn't ask the UN for permission to attack Iraq. He doesn't have to. Ask is predecesor how many military actions he approved after asking permission from the UN. He'll answer "zero."

And here's a fact you have yet to address:

These are Marines who are accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I could create a computer program that behaves just like you:

Code:
// file: conservative.c

#include <stdio.h>

#include "conservative.h"

main() {
while (1) {
switch (state) {
case LOSING_ARGUMENT:
printf("WOW.  What you say is silly!\n");
break;
default:
printf("Bush rules!  Global warming is teh suck!  Families must die!!\n");
}
}
}

Very funny!

You might want to go ahead and add in the "liberaldrivel.h" header and a just have the program loop through the talking points from that side.

You know, where when someone brings up how good the economy is, "No it's not, everyone is unemployed, but they just aren't able to get unemployment. The economy sucks!!! Clinton/Gore economy rules!!"

Or when it comes to the war, "Didn't ask the UN!! No WMDs!! Bush is teh suck1"

Could be a fun program.

I'd suggest changing it from C to a JavaScript so it can just post on the board all by itself.

[abe]

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

It's a great picture. My wife bought that for me for my birthday 2 years ago when we were still dating. It hung on my wall in my office until we redecorated.

btw, love the Jihad TV picture, abe...but are you sure that isn't CNN?

[[email protected]]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom
Sorry, could you point out to me where you posted facts? Your first post was filled with untrue of misleading facts (knowing the difference between Army and Marines is a basic thing.)

Since then, you've posted opinion. An opinion that Bush should be charged with war crimes. An opinion that the war is based on lies, etc.

Please note there is nothing wrong with your opinions. You have a right to them, no matter how left-wing wacko they are.

But don't accuse others of not posting facts and revel in the fact that you are a fact-posting machine. Your opinions and spitting up the opinions of left-wing bloggers is not fact-posting.

When I want facts, I wait for Simey to come along. He's always got his sh*t together.

Here are some facts for you:

In the last poll that mattered, with over 121 Million people surveyed, George W. Bush had 51% support.

George W. Bush didn't send the troops to war on his own. In fact, the House approved the Iraq War Resolution 296-133 while the Senate passed it 77-23.

George W. Bush didn't ask the UN for permission to attack Iraq. He doesn't have to. Ask is predecesor how many military actions he approved after asking permission from the UN. He'll answer "zero."

And here's a fact you have yet to address:

These are Marines who are accused of a crime, not convicted of one.

First of all I NEVER said that these Marine's were convicted of any of these crimes. All that I said was given the light of the new Marnie Massacre last November; I hoped that the story wouldn't be swept under the rug. This story has been covered-up at least once allready.

It looks like you missed the facts, so I'll go over them again.

The facts of the story are:
Nov. 19th,2005 while in Haditha, Iraq a Marine convoy was attacked. One Marine was killed.

In retalization Marines open fired on a taxi-cab and in two houses, killing over 24 innocent people. The ages of the dead were from age 2 to 78.

One Marine stated that some of the people were killed execution-style, including gunshots to the head.

After the massacre 2 Marines were ordered to take photos with their personal digital cameras. They are now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, because of taking the photos.

Turns out the murdering Marines left 4 witnesses alive. Their stories are finally being heard. Link at the bottom.

In a different attack on April 26,2006. Another civilian was killed.

Marines are being held at Camp Pendelton, CA in pretrial confinement.

Other Marines saw Marines planting AK-47's and shovels near the body; to make it look like the insurgent was planting an IED.

There has been 2 investigations so far. Hopefully there will be more to come. As I said before I hope they hang the men that did this.

These are the facts know so far, is there any more questions??
I didn't think so.

I'll address the facts about the Bush War Crimes in another post.

Link about April 26th murder; LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

Links about the Haditha Massacre:
Washington Post Opinon article:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...the_marin.html

Mercury News Local News in CA; about the photographs:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/14697399.htm

Denver Post, Survivors describe suspected Iraq Massacre:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3876652

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by kobi

First of all I NEVER said that these Marine's were convicted of any of these crimes. All that I said was given the light of the new Marnie Massacre last November; I hoped that the story wouldn't be swept under the rug. This story has been covered-up at least once allready.

Actually, by saying the entire thing is fact, you are convicting the Marines. Try this instead, "the story has ALLEDGEDLY been covered up at least once."

Hope you don't intend on being a criminal attorney.

Originally Posted by kobi

It looks like you missed the facts, so I'll go over them again.

I'll help you by marking facts with "FACT" and speculation with "SPECULATION." I'll italicize the problems with your assumptions.

Originally Posted by kobi

The facts of the story are:
Nov. 19th,2005 while in Haditha, Iraq a Marine convoy was attacked. One Marine was killed.

FACTS

Originally Posted by kobi

In retalization Marines open fired on a taxi-cab and in two houses, killing over 24 innocent people.

SPECULATION

Originally Posted by kobi

The ages of the dead were from age 2 to 78.

FACT

Originally Posted by kobi

One Marine stated that some of the people were killed execution-style, including gunshots to the head.

HEARSAY

Originally Posted by kobi

After the massacre 2 Marines were ordered to take photos with their personal digital cameras. They are now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, because of taking the photos.

SPECULATION. I'm sure being in a war, being shot at, having someone plant a bomb intended to kill you had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by kobi

Turns out the murdering Marines left 4 witnesses alive. Their stories are finally being heard. Link at the bottom.

I thought you hadn't convicted them yet? Hmmmm.

Somehow I think had the Marine Corps had X amount of witnesses saying all was well, you'd say "COVERUP!!!" But these witnesses have no reason to make anything up, right?

Originally Posted by kobi

n a different attack on April 26,2006. Another civilian was killed.

Marines are being held at Camp Pendelton, CA in pretrial confinement.

FACTS. Good for you...

Originally Posted by kobi

Other Marines saw Marines planting AK-47's and shovels near the body; to make it look like the insurgent was planting an IED.

SPECULATION. <zoolander>You can read minds??</zoolander>

Originally Posted by kobi

There has been 2 investigations so far. Hopefully there will be more to come. As I said before I hope they hang the men that did this.

FACT followed by OPINION followed by OPINION.

Originally Posted by kobi

These are the facts know so far, is there any more questions??
I didn't think so.

Yes, I have more questions. What law school are you going to, and do they give diplomas to those who don't know fact from speculation, opinion from fact, etc? Have you ever even heard of evidence?

Originally Posted by kobi

I'll address the facts about the Bush War Crimes in another post.

Hopefully, you'll know what a fact is by then.

Originally Posted by kobi

Denver Post, Survivors describe suspected Iraq Massacre:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3876652

An accurate headline. Note the word "suspected."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ok nw again I have to removed the silliness

And **** if I don't have anything to respond to.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Originally Posted by Kevin

glad I am not the only one that sees it.

The other one is one of the dumbest people on this forum!

Originally Posted by Kevin

He doesn't know the history of it. This is obvious.

This coming from the same person that said the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq are the same thing? Never mind my historical introduction!


Oh man, I haven't seen such a cowardly defeat in... well, this is the first one I've seen actually.

The great Zimphire! Beaten! I'm going to relish this occasion and make sure to rub it in.
I've got just the thing to celebrate with too.

Victory!!!!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Good thing I'm not a Marine and I wasn't there. I may have cleaned out the entire vicinity just to make sure I had half a chance of getting the bombers.

I'll go on record as suggesting that there would be fewer IEDs if our soldiers were allowed to kill everyone in the surrounding neighborhoods after a blast occurred. Ain't like nobody saw some insugents burying a bomb nearby.

It's a war and we should do what it takes to decisively win. To hell with the feelings of the worthless "global community".

I think you need a break. You're getting Harry Potter syndrome from trying to cram Mein Kampf in 2 hours.

[itistoday]

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Are they preparing to drag him off to the gallows for ignoring the Consitution his forefathers fought so hard to create and preserve?

[itistoday]

You're 2 for 2, olePigeon

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Are they preparing to drag him off to the gallows for ignoring the Consitution his forefathers fought so hard to create and preserve?

I was going to answer your question with another question, but I won't. However, it should be noted that Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. That seems to me a bit more extreme example of "ignoring" the Constitution. I'm not say that he was right or wrong for doing it, just pointing it out.

[[email protected]]

davesimondot next time that you bend the truth with your falliacy's. Please back it up with something. Anything. Please.

I've listed the facts, I'm still waiting for your facts btw?

Now go along and let the grown-ups have a conversation.

Look up the word fallacy's. That might help you find the truth.

[ThinkInsane]

Wow. Just wow. This thread sucks like few have ever sucked before. I'm just saying...

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Yeah, it's the very same "scandal" that's been reported at least 4 different times over the last few months. They're hoping it will somehow "stick" this time. Must be a slow news week again. Everytime it's reported you'll notice that there are only 2 witnesses quoted. And neither was there. One is an "unnamed source" and the other is a well-known Bush critic that has retired from the military (Murtha).

So you are saying the American media is trying to spread false information that make the US look bad?

[[email protected]]

Originally posted by oloPigeon
Are they preparing to drag him off to the gallows for ignoring the Consitution his forefathers fought so hard to create and preserve?

Nice one. I wish they were.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

One rule for Americans and one rule for foreigners.

Always sad to see such blatant hypocrisy.......

and AGAIN YOU MISS THE POINT!!! JEEEZ!

INVADING TERORISTS WHO ARE NOT AMERICANS should not get the same rights of a true american. The advantage is in BEING AN AMERICAN. Perhaps if more countries gave their citizens the rights that americans have they would have fewer problems. in the US, women are not property. Can any Muslim nation claim that?