55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 08:18 pm
@Foofie,
is that a jig, or a two-step, foofie?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 08:18 pm
@Foofie,
Wow. Just, wow.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 08:24 pm
@ican711nm,
Well, fair enough.

Without having to provide any additional evidence, will you simply state for the record that you claim that the points raised are in fact true, and not just opinions? After you say yes, I'll be happy to begin doing the research to back up my points about lies in your blog post.

Cycloptichorn
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 08:42 pm
@Foofie,
Lebensraum im Westen, eh?

You're quite a character, Foofie.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:52 am
@old europe,
If only us "libruls" were more like the characters on Bonanza, then foofie might like us and think we actually care about our country.


I find it really disgusting how Foofie and others think they can speak for every American that ever served and was wounded. My father was a disabled Vet Foofie from his service in the Korean War. He passed away but I doubt he would agree with you one bit.
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:59 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

kickycan wrote:
evidence of kickycan's incompetence: Wow, you can actually watch the slow disintegration of Ican's mind in this thread. It's almost like reading "Flowers for Algernon" again. Cool.



Yeah, that sure is some incompetence there, Charlie Gordon. Rolling Eyes What are you at now, about a fifth-grade comprehension level? Poor Charlie. Don't worry, we'll all keep watching as you slowly degenerate all the way back to RETARD.<----not an acronym

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 08:07 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Or, in other words, you don't have to come up with any facts to support your claims, but anyone who criticizes your position must support their claims with evidence.


FALSE! TRY AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED (I paragraphed each sentence and provided additional underlining to make my post easier for you to understand):

In my opinion, generally you are not responsible for proving my source's claim wrong any more than I am responsible for proving my source's claim right.

The exception to that occurs when I post a source's claim, and you post your claim, not your opinion, that the source's claim is wrong.

For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.


Oh, I see: so if I say that, in my opinion, ican is a notorious pedophile who rapes little boys, and you claim that you are not a notorious pedophile who rapes little boys, then it's up to you to come up with evidence to prove that I'm wrong?
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:38 am
@joefromchicago,
I think if you were to post "In Reality ican is a pedophile" and I then quoted you ican would have to accept it as fact.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:56 am
@Foofie,
MOS is not an exclusive term to the Army. All members of the armed forces have had an MOS. That you are unable to provide one is evidence to me that in addition to being a mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch, you are also a liar, who never spent one day in the armed forces.

You may be assured that i don't give a rat's ass whether or not you are Jewish, because it is immaterial to the fact that you are a mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch and a liar.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:58 am
By the way, Okie is a liar, as well. He placed me on his ignore list (along with a lot of decent folks here) because he came to the unsupported conclusion that i am a communist--he likened me to that clown in Venezuela. Basically, i and several others were placed on his ignore list because he couldn't sustain his idiotic thesis in his dictators thread and the frustrations mounted beyond his poor capacity to deal with them.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 10:19 am
@Setanta,
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 10:51 am
@mysteryman,
Well, so I would have been an Operations Specialist, Chief Petty Officer ... in the USNavy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 10:54 am
@mysteryman,
If Foofie had actually served in the armed forces, he would have known that. My brother, who was a fire control technician, referred to it as an MOS, but then he might have done that because i and our other brother were members of the army.

The point, however, is that Foofie was probably lying. We will never know now, though, since you have let the cat out of the bag.

The army MOS for field medic was 90A10, 91- would imply either a higher rank or a higher degree of training. Although i was trained for 90A10, i was sent to the Medical Field Service School and there trained for other MOS's, so i didn't follow that track long enough to know for certain about that.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 11:22 am
@Setanta,
If he wanted to lie, wouldn't he have just googled MOS and have been able to come up with something to tell you?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:09 pm
@maporsche,
Each MOS has a numerical designation, and a specific descriptor, and the descriptor must match the designation. If he had tried to lie about that, it also would have soon been apparent.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:10 pm
By the way, Maporsche, Foofie has never shown himself to be that bright--thanks for tipping him wise.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

By the way, Okie is a liar, as well. He placed me on his ignore list (along with a lot of decent folks here) because he came to the unsupported conclusion that i am a communist--he likened me to that clown in Venezuela. Basically, i and several others were placed on his ignore list because he couldn't sustain his idiotic thesis in his dictators thread and the frustrations mounted beyond his poor capacity to deal with them.


Well, you are a bit of a "commonist" ! Irritable and cranky too ! Laughing
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:38 pm
@georgeob1,
Finding your typical mode of expression, O'George, to be common and cranky, does not constitute evidence that I am a commonist.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:49 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Finding your typical mode of expression, O'George, to be common and cranky, does not constitute evidence that I am a commonist.

It makes conservatives uncomfortable perhaps to see liberal ideas defended in by someone not holding a flower or hugging a tree.

Hearing their ideas shot down due to practicality or pragmatism is something they haven't a strategy for... At least a good strategy.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 01:14 pm
@Setanta,
Your'e probably right. I was just looking for a friendly dig.

TKO should lighten up.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:48:46