Joe Nation wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Joe Nation wrote:Quote:You hate Bush and Coulter.
Who do you hold responsible for cutting off Nick Berg's head?
Given the limited choice between those two, I'd say Bush.
For the record, I blame the terrorists who actually cut off his head.
That isn't the question you asked.
J
I asked:
Who do you hold responsible for cutting off Nick Berg's head?
You answered that blame Bush ... I blame the terrorists who cut off his head.
Are you wanting to clarify your answer? Please do so at any time.
Advocate wrote:For all the right's nit picking of Moore, they haven't laid a glove on him. The thrust of his films is absolutely valid.
Sure, if you ignore all of the inaccuracies, distortions, untruths, and false innuendo.
Quote:Tico, as you may know, there were no terrorists in Iraq until we occupied the country.
No, I don't know that.
Quote:Considering that Bush lied us into the war, he is certainly partially responsible for Berg's murder.
He didn't lie us to war, you have nothing but your wildest fantasies supporting that charge, and you tell much about yourself when you reveal that instead of the terrorists, you blame Bush.
Quote:It was a good match, which, I think, Italy deserved to win. The head butt by Zadane was a huge mistake. He would not miss a penalty kick.
That I can agree with.
dlowan wrote:Joe Nation wrote:I thought he might be asking the question badly, which he was.
Heh heh.
Joe(I have this little mean streak)Nation
Well, you need it here. Sheesh.
To be fair, Tico might not have MEANT that as a set up...though it **** well looks like it...but the triumph (which he will now deny was there) was shabby indeed.
ding ding ding
some people never disappoint
dlowan wrote:Lol!
Thing is Joe, in on eof his typical moves, Tico will now come back and say that it IS the question he asked.
Note the tactic.
"You hate Bush and Coulter>"
There they are in your mind.
"Who do you blame for cutting off Nick Berg's head"?
It is natural for you to assume he is asking you to choose between the two.......it is not, actually, what he is asking, as he will soon point out to you with shabby triumph....but it is entirely natural. As I say, a typical Tico ploy.
And then there you will be, if you fall for it, endlessly accused about, and defending a position you took only in reponse to what you quite reasonably thought you were being asked, and probably would not otherwise have even considered as a position.
I saw your response last night, by the way.......also interpreting Tico's question the way you did, and thought your answer very witty...very blackly witty, but witty.
Remember, you can choose not to let Tico drag you into being endlessly attacked and pettifogged and defending yourself about something he manufactured.
It's a simple question I asked. I didn't realize I needed to
dumb it down for your benefit. Why on earth would I ask anyone to choose between Coulter and Bush for the blame for cutting off Berg's head? Are you people truly that daft?
It was a simple question with a very simple answer. No, Joe shall not be "endlessly accused" of claiming Bush is responsible for cutting off Berg's head ... if he corrects his prior answer.
Advocate is now on the record for blaming Bush and not the terrorists. We are all seeing more and more layers of Advocate's true character revealed the more he allows himself/herself to speak.
Joe Nation wrote:I thought he might be asking the question badly, which he was.
Heh heh.
Joe(I have this little mean streak)Nation
Of course you realize now you were just reading the question poorly, don't you?
Tico(I really need to take my audience into consideration more)Maya
and another lawyer joke lives on
dlowan wrote:Joe Nation wrote:I thought he might be asking the question badly, which he was.
Heh heh.
Joe(I have this little mean streak)Nation
Well, you need it here. Sheesh.
To be fair, Tico might not have MEANT that as a set up...though it **** well looks like it...but the triumph (which he will now deny was there) was shabby indeed.
Set up? I had no idea you people would read more into that simple question than there was.
Tico, playing stupid doesn't wash around here
Tico said: "Advocate is now on the record for blaming Bush and not the terrorists. We are all seeing more and more layers of Advocate's true character revealed the more he allows himself/herself to speak."
I now see that Tico is a liar. I said that Bush was partially responsible for Berg's murder. The terrorists are also responsible.
Advocate would be, I am certain, hooted out of any court in the world with that idiotic comment.
To assign blame to President Bush for a beheading done by fanatic Islamic Fanatics is also to assign blame to Clinton for
l. The Cole
2. The Embassy Bombings
3. The first attack on the WTC.
When you assign blame for a murder( I am sure that Advocate does not know this) you must affix blame for the "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either express or implied"
Now, an Accessory is one who, without being present at the commission of a felonious offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participator, as by COMMAND, ADVICE, INSTIGATION OR CONCEALMENT"
I defy Advocate to present a LEGALLY LOGICAL CHARGE depicting President Bush as an Accessory.
Mr. Advocate simply has no idea what he/she is talking about and is just blowing smoke.
ehBeth wrote:Tico, playing stupid doesn't wash around here
Did you misread the question too?
Where is the legal defense from Advocate? Again---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate would be, I am certain, hooted out of any court in the world with that idiotic comment.
To assign blame to President Bush for a beheading done by fanatic Islamic Fanatics is also to assign blame to Clinton for
l. The Cole
2. The Embassy Bombings
3. The first attack on the WTC.
When you assign blame for a murder( I am sure that Advocate does not know this) you must affix blame for the "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either express or implied"
Now, an Accessory is one who, without being present at the commission of a felonious offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participator, as by COMMAND, ADVICE, INSTIGATION OR CONCEALMENT"
I defy Advocate to present a LEGALLY LOGICAL CHARGE depicting President Bush as an Accessory.
Mr. Advocate simply has no idea what he/she is talking about and is just blowing smoke.
Ticomaya wrote:ehBeth wrote:Tico, playing stupid doesn't wash around here
Did you misread the question too?
It is one of your 'tricks', tico. And you use it commonly enough to deserve the 'disingenuous' label.
Isn't this along the same lines as "Liberals" being to blame for boosting the confidence of insurgents / the Iraq war going badly/ the lowering of the moral of our troops?
(Ann Coulter now has 40 pages on A2K - WAY more attention than she deserves.)
blatham wrote:Ticomaya wrote:ehBeth wrote:Tico, playing stupid doesn't wash around here
Did you misread the question too?
It is one of your 'tricks', tico. And you use it commonly enough to deserve the 'disingenuous' label.
Apparently I'm trickier than I realized. I'm even tricky when I don't mean to be tricky.
I am truly at a loss to fathom how any intelligent poster on A2K would have concluded I was asking for a choice between Bush and Coulter for complicity in Nick Berg's death in the first place, much less in the context the question was framed. If you look at Advocate's post I was responding to, you will see he indicated he blamed Bush for the "
tens of thousands of casualties in our war on Iraq." It was in direct response to that statement that I asked the question. Surely the obvious contextual clues did not escape
all of you? Allow me to replicate the exchange to refresh your collective memory:
[quote="Ticomaya"][quote="Advocate"]Tico, you have no basis to say I hate Ann Maggot Coulter. There is no reason to hate an entertainer -- the most she can do is injure a person's feelings. I probably do hate Bush for really hurting our country and most of its people. [color=#3333FF]I hold him responsible, for example, for the tens of thousands of casualties in our war on Iraq.[/color][/quote]
You hate Bush and Coulter.
[color=#3333FF]Who do you hold responsible for cutting off Nick Berg's head?[/color][/quote]
Get a grip, people.
squinney wrote:Isn't this along the same lines as "Liberals" being to blame for boosting the confidence of insurgents / the Iraq war going badly/ the lowering of the moral of our troops?
No, the "boosting of the confidence" of the terrorists requires a catalyst. In some cases the catalyst is self-provided with the success of a suicide/homicide bombing mission or IED -- but clearly the battlefield losses are squarely against the terrorists and likely quite demoralizing. The biggest catalyst is surely in the bias evident in the anti-war reporting of the NYT and other liberal media outlets, which, if kept up long enough, can turn victory into defeat by eroding support for the war both domestically and abroad. The terrorists need only pick up the arabic version of the NYT or Newsweek to find enough motivation to continue fighting. Officials in communist Vietnam have admitted that they lost the war on the battlefield, but won it in the media and with the anti-war movement in the US.
Quote:(Ann Coulter now has 40 pages on A2K - WAY more attention than she deserves.)
The hatred the left has for Coulter knows no bounds. You can't surpress it, squinney. Just let it flow.
If it's any consolation, I understood your question.
McGentrix wrote:If it's any consolation, I understood your question.
You are an intelligent poster, McG.
Coulter has a history of being a psycho. Changing her ways now would only serve to let us down - if I see her on TV, I
expect some ridiculous, outlandish bullsh*t to fly out of her demonic (if pretty) face at whoever has the misfortune of interviewing her, and if that doesn't happen, I'll frankly be disappointed.
Be careful what you say about Coulter. Tico is in love with her (or he).
