One of them perhaps!!! Do you know that the upstate Florida counties received instructions to label every possible disputed vote as Republican? Do you know that the Republicrats threatened people who objected? Do you know that the Republicrats control all of Northern Florida?
Do you know that the Ohio Election was tainted from the beginning because of the Diebold machines? Why don't you look into this instead of making comments that protect the corrupt Bushites?
Oh trust me, we've looked into this. Again and again and again...
That is not an answer. That is avoiding the issue. You must know that millions of American voters do not know the truth and time is running out. Do you really want the Republicrats to maintain the majority in either the Senate or the House?
Yes, it is an answer. We've gone through these conspiracy theories in great detail here in a succession of threads. Not much point in repeating the whole exercise, just dig into the archive.
And no, I dont want the Republicans to retain Senate or House. Which is another reason to shut down the conspiracy talk. The more that some fringe liberals talk about how Bush and Israel set up 9/11, the more they scare mainstream voters back into the Republican camp.
MarionT wrote:That is not an answer. That is avoiding the issue. You must know that millions of American voters do not know the truth and time is running out. Do you really want the Republicrats to maintain the majority in either the Senate or the House?
Since you've only joined the day before yesterday, let me assure you that nimh has gone over these issues a lot. If he isn't getting into the issue
now, it's probably because a certain fatigue has set in -- not because he is avoiding the matter. Please don't expect us to re-run our old debates for every newcomer who joins. (And I'm sorry if this sounded arrogant or patronizing.)
Thankee, Thomas. Though lemme add that Ive mostly been an onlooker and reader-along in all those threads, occasionally complimenting one or the other poster or throwing a question in. It was instructive. For the actual meat of the stuff, anyone should look at Farmerman's and Timberlandko's posts (a bipartisan duo, too, a liberal and a conservative..).
And while you're at it have a look at the posts of those they lock horns with.
I'd guess the UN will immediately call for a crisis session, in which several countries, I shall say no names, will throw their weight around and point out that where one bomb is thrown, another could soon follow, and that the best way to answer is to show that we cannot condone this behavior.
Furtheron, it might be stipulated that the best way to do so is of course by
a). Annihilating the country throwing the bomb of course.
b) Just to stay on the safe side, nuke every other country which is supsected to be 1. a nuclear power and 2. A potential threat to world peace.
A positive side effect would of course be, that after that little display of power, no other country would probably dare to throw a nuclear bomb ever again.
Naj.
PS. Just in case you might wonder, I am not exactly in favor of such actions... just stipulating what would happen given our current balance of power and the leaders of all countries involved...
It's about damned time somebody pointed out Habibi's inability to make a cogent reply, leading to goofy comments--all of which, of course, is the result of his funadmentally and inalterably dishonorable nature.
Another Arabophobic comment without reason. Habibi is twice as smart as Bush. Bush can't put two sentences together. At least Habibi doesn'tlie like Bush. Bush lied and thousands died. Habibi never made such outrageous statements as Bushie did about Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam Hussein never had. Bushie only wanted Iraq's oil. Anyone who knows the Bush family background knows that they are very very close to the Texas Oil Barons. Wake up!!!
Gargamel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Thomas wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I don't much like being harassed merely for politely posting an opinion, but harassment of those who disagree does seem to be the liberal tool of choice. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, and dishonorable people don't.
I think he was just playing. Notice the tongue-in-cheek smiley.
I'm not talking about one post by one person. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, as by honest competition of ideas. Dishonorable people try to prevail dishonorably. Just an unfortunate fact.
Wow. You're so honorbale. So honorable I think you should write
another post about what honorable people do, and what they don't do. Because honor is so easily measured by combinations of letters on a screen. Forget the US Armed Forces. Anonymous posters on public blogs set the example.
Your apparent suggestion that it isn't possible to debate in a dishonorable way is nonsense. Trying to make one's opinions prevail by putting one's ideas in competition with other ideas is an honorable way to debate. Trying to attack or harass one's opponent as the primary tool of debate is certainly dishonorable, and is certainly rampant here. Your suggestion that the terms can't apply to online debate because it consists of "combinations of letters on a screen" is false.
"Online debate"? I wouldnt call repeating the exact same line of argument, on the exact same topic, over and over again, both on threads where it is on-topic and threads where it is a far-fetched tangent, without there being any sense of a to and fro, any kind of mutual influence or integration of new ideas or information, "debate". I dont think that nomer applies. Its an endless repetition of moves. There's no progressive insight in anything, no joy in the exchange of opinions from a range of angles, just the unbending conviction of being right, a near-obsessive, scrupulous but humorless focus on one and only one single topic, and the urge to repeat your stance on it, in practically the same wordings, over and over again. Thats not "debate". It's pathology.
nimh wrote:"Online debate"? I wouldnt call repeating the exact same line of argument, on the exact same topic, over and over again, both on threads where it is on-topic and threads where it is a far-fetched tangent, without there being any sense of a to and fro, any kind of mutual influence or integration of new ideas or information, "debate". I dont think that nomer applies. Its an endless repetition of moves. There's no progressive insight in anything, no joy in the exchange of opinions from a range of angles, just the unbending conviction of being right, a near-obsessive, scrupulous but humorless focus on one and only one single topic, and the urge to repeat your stance on it, in practically the same wordings, over and over again. Thats not "debate". It's pathology.
Yes, and I'm sure that "Bush lied and thousand died" is very original. Or how about prattling on about, "There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11" which Mr. Bush never even asserted. Oh, your side has immense variability from post to post.
But again, you do exactly what I just predicted, you try to evade a specific assertion by commenting on my personal characteristics, which is exactly what I just said that the A2K liberals almost always do. Thanks for proving me right so quickly. It's my observation that most of the conservatives here actually put forth opinions with logic and citations, and they are usually met with distractions and ad hominems.
Brandon9000 wrote:Gargamel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Thomas wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I don't much like being harassed merely for politely posting an opinion, but harassment of those who disagree does seem to be the liberal tool of choice. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, and dishonorable people don't.
I think he was just playing. Notice the tongue-in-cheek smiley.
I'm not talking about one post by one person. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, as by honest competition of ideas. Dishonorable people try to prevail dishonorably. Just an unfortunate fact.
Wow. You're so honorbale. So honorable I think you should write
another post about what honorable people do, and what they don't do. Because honor is so easily measured by combinations of letters on a screen. Forget the US Armed Forces. Anonymous posters on public blogs set the example.
Your apparent suggestion that it isn't possible to debate in a dishonorable way is nonsense. Trying to make one's opinions prevail by putting one's ideas in competition with other ideas is an honorable way to debate. Trying to attack or harass one's opponent as the primary tool of debate is certainly dishonorable, and is certainly rampant here. Your suggestion that the terms can't apply to online debate because it consists of "combinations of letters on a screen" is false.
<yawns, scratches balls, moves to next thread>
No one has countered my claim that Bushie is stupid. So we will begin to take that as a given. And, as far as the commentary on 9/11 goes, it should be relatively simple for the defenders of the Bushites to post comments that prove that 9/11 was not a Bush/Israeli conspiracy. Why, if they are so certain that they are correct, are they so reticent to do so? Is it because, as many investigators have pointed out, there are so many unanswered questions?
nimh wrote:What a freakshow this forum is becoming, eh?
An opportunity to agree with nimh whole-heartedly.
Gargamel - interesting article. Maybe paranoid, but possibly a good business to get into right now (survival knowledge and products and all that goes with that).
I might start selling suicide-pills on the streets afore the revolution/nuculear bombing.
Apple pie flavoured!
Brandon9000 wrote:It's my observation that most of the conservatives here actually put forth opinions with logic and citations, and they are usually met with distractions and ad hominems.
Yes, and I dont think anything could really change your perception of this, which is why its little use to even try.
Gargamel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Gargamel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Thomas wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I don't much like being harassed merely for politely posting an opinion, but harassment of those who disagree does seem to be the liberal tool of choice. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, and dishonorable people don't.
I think he was just playing. Notice the tongue-in-cheek smiley.
I'm not talking about one post by one person. Honorable people try to prevail honorably, as by honest competition of ideas. Dishonorable people try to prevail dishonorably. Just an unfortunate fact.
Wow. You're so honorbale. So honorable I think you should write
another post about what honorable people do, and what they don't do. Because honor is so easily measured by combinations of letters on a screen. Forget the US Armed Forces. Anonymous posters on public blogs set the example.
Your apparent suggestion that it isn't possible to debate in a dishonorable way is nonsense. Trying to make one's opinions prevail by putting one's ideas in competition with other ideas is an honorable way to debate. Trying to attack or harass one's opponent as the primary tool of debate is certainly dishonorable, and is certainly rampant here. Your suggestion that the terms can't apply to online debate because it consists of "combinations of letters on a screen" is false.
<yawns>
you left out smells fingers
nimh wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It's my observation that most of the conservatives here actually put forth opinions with logic and citations, and they are usually met with distractions and ad hominems.
Yes, and I dont think anything could really change your perception of this, which is why its little use to even try.
Yes, go ahead and change my perception of how your side chooses to operate. The very next post after yours proves me correct.
And we all know that anecdote proves anything . . . how very honorable and scientific you are Brandon . . . gee i wish i could be just like you ! ! !
